Brett M Wiesen1, Michael R Bronsert2, Davis M Aasen2, Abhinav B Singh2, Anne Lambert-Kerzner1, William G Henderson3, Karl E Hammermeister4, Robert A Meguid5. 1. Surgical Outcomes and Applied Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 2. Surgical Outcomes and Applied Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 3. Surgical Outcomes and Applied Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO. 4. Surgical Outcomes and Applied Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 5. Surgical Outcomes and Applied Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. Electronic address: ROBERT.MEGUID@CUAnschutz.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the effects of using the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) on patient satisfaction and surgeon efficiency in the surgical informed consent process, as compared to surgeons' "usual" consent process. STUDY DESIGN: Patient perception of the consent process was assessed via survey in 2 cohorts: 10 surgeons in different specialties used their "usual" consent process for 10 patients; these surgeons were then taught to use SURPAS, and they used it during the informed consent process of 10 additional patients. The data were compared using Fisher's exact test and the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: One hundred patients underwent the "usual" consent process (USUAL), and 93 underwent SURPAS-guided consent (SURPAS). Eighty-two percent of SURPAS were "very satisfied" and 18% were "satisfied" with risk discussion vs 16% and 72% of USUAL, respectively. Of those who used SURPAS, 75.3% reported the risk discussion made them "more comfortable" with surgery vs 19% of USUAL, and 90.3% of SURPAS users reported "somewhat" or "greatly decreased" anxiety vs 20% of USUAL. All p values were <0.0001. Among SURPAS patients, 97.9% reported "enough time spent discussing risks" vs 72.0% of USUAL patients. CONCLUSIONS: The SURPAS tool improved the informed consent process for patients compared with the "usual" consent process, in terms of patient satisfaction, ie making patients feel more comfortable and less anxious about their impending operations. Providers should consider integrating the SURPAS tool into their preoperative consent process.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the effects of using the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) on patient satisfaction and surgeon efficiency in the surgical informed consent process, as compared to surgeons' "usual" consent process. STUDY DESIGN:Patient perception of the consent process was assessed via survey in 2 cohorts: 10 surgeons in different specialties used their "usual" consent process for 10 patients; these surgeons were then taught to use SURPAS, and they used it during the informed consent process of 10 additional patients. The data were compared using Fisher's exact test and the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: One hundred patients underwent the "usual" consent process (USUAL), and 93 underwent SURPAS-guided consent (SURPAS). Eighty-two percent of SURPAS were "very satisfied" and 18% were "satisfied" with risk discussion vs 16% and 72% of USUAL, respectively. Of those who used SURPAS, 75.3% reported the risk discussion made them "more comfortable" with surgery vs 19% of USUAL, and 90.3% of SURPAS users reported "somewhat" or "greatly decreased" anxiety vs 20% of USUAL. All p values were <0.0001. Among SURPAS patients, 97.9% reported "enough time spent discussing risks" vs 72.0% of USUAL patients. CONCLUSIONS: The SURPAS tool improved the informed consent process for patients compared with the "usual" consent process, in terms of patient satisfaction, ie making patients feel more comfortable and less anxious about their impending operations. Providers should consider integrating the SURPAS tool into their preoperative consent process.
Authors: Michael R Bronsert; Anne Lambert-Kerzner; William G Henderson; Karl E Hammermeister; Chisom Atuanya; Davis M Aasen; Abhinav B Singh; Robert A Meguid Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2020-07-25
Authors: Nisha Pradhan; Adam R Dyas; Michael R Bronsert; Anne Lambert-Kerzner; William G Henderson; Howe Qiu; Kathryn L Colborn; Nicholas J Mason; Robert A Meguid Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2022-03-17
Authors: Christopher J Zimmermann; Amy B Zelenski; Anne Buffington; Nathan D Baggett; Jennifer L Tucholka; Holly B Weis; Nicholas Marka; Thomas Schoultz; Elle Kalbfell; Toby C Campbell; Vivian Lin; Diane Lape; Karen J Brasel; Herbert A Phelan; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 3.697