Akash Prashar1, Saqib Butt2, Davide Giuseppe Castiglione3, Nadeem Shaida4. 1. Department of Interventional Radiology, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, Canterbury, UK. 2. Department of Interventional Radiology, Guy's & St. Thomas Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. Azienda Ospedaliera S Croce E Carle, Cuneo, Piemonte, Italy. 4. Department of Interventional Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Obtaining informed consent is a mandatory part of modern clinical practice. The aim of this study was to identify how often complications relating to Interventional Radiology (IR) procedures were discussed with the patient prior to the procedure. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 100 patients who experienced a complication related to an IR procedure was performed. The patient's procedure consent form was examined to identify whether the complication they experienced had been discussed as a possible risk. Other parts of the consent form relating to need for blood transfusion and the need for further procedures were also examined. RESULTS: 39% of patients who experienced a complication did not have the complication documented as a potential risk on the consent form. 14% of patients required a blood transfusion but were not consented for this. 42% of patients required a further procedure or operation but were not warned of this. CONCLUSION: The model of gaining informed consent on the day of procedure is no longer valid. Better education and the use of clinics, patient information sheets and other resources is essential. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The paper highlights the inadequacies of the current model in gaining consent for IR procedures. A more comprehensive consent process making use of all available resources is essential.
OBJECTIVES: Obtaining informed consent is a mandatory part of modern clinical practice. The aim of this study was to identify how often complications relating to Interventional Radiology (IR) procedures were discussed with the patient prior to the procedure. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 100 patients who experienced a complication related to an IR procedure was performed. The patient's procedure consent form was examined to identify whether the complication they experienced had been discussed as a possible risk. Other parts of the consent form relating to need for blood transfusion and the need for further procedures were also examined. RESULTS: 39% of patients who experienced a complication did not have the complication documented as a potential risk on the consent form. 14% of patients required a blood transfusion but were not consented for this. 42% of patients required a further procedure or operation but were not warned of this. CONCLUSION: The model of gaining informed consent on the day of procedure is no longer valid. Better education and the use of clinics, patient information sheets and other resources is essential. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The paper highlights the inadequacies of the current model in gaining consent for IR procedures. A more comprehensive consent process making use of all available resources is essential.
Authors: R C Zvavanjanja; T O Odetoyinbo; P C Rowlands; A Healey; H Abdelsalam; S Powell; J C Evans; M L Hughes; D A Gould; R G McWilliams Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: D K Filippiadis; C Binkert; O Pellerin; R T Hoffmann; A Krajina; P L Pereira Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 2.740