Literature DB >> 9591001

The readability of currently used surgical/procedure consent forms in the United States.

K D Hopper1, T R TenHave, D A Tully, T E Hall.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Informed consent forms are universally used by hospitals throughout the United States before surgery or invasive procedures. This survey was undertaken to determine the content of these forms and their ability to be understood by individuals with differing reading comprehension levels.
METHODS: Ten percent of all U.S. hospitals were requested to forward a copy of their current surgical/procedural informed consent form. The forms received were digitized and computer assessed for readability. In addition, each form was evaluated for a variety of items with respect to content.
RESULTS: Of the 2194 requests mailed, 681 responses were received including 616 with surgical/procedural consent forms. The mean grade level required to understand these consent forms was 12.6 (+/- 3.1). There was no variability in readability scores on the basis of hospital bed size. Of the 616 consent forms reviewed, 29, 146, 347, and 461 forms could be understood by individuals reading at a grade level of less than 8 and at least 8, 10, and 12 years of education, respectively. Although most required the name of the patient, physician, and procedure, the majority did not describe or provide a full-in blank for the specific benefits, risks, and alternatives to the procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of surgical/procedural informed consent forms currently used by U.S. hospitals are complex and are not easily understood by the average patient. In addition, the majority of reviewed consent forms do not list specific benefits or potential complications of the planned surgery/procedure.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9591001     DOI: 10.1067/msy.1998.87236

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  14 in total

Review 1.  Informed consent for clinical treatment.

Authors:  Daniel E Hall; Allan V Prochazka; Aaron S Fink
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Sports medicine and ethics.

Authors:  Daniela Testoni; Christoph P Hornik; P Brian Smith; Daniel K Benjamin; Ross E McKinney
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 11.229

Review 3.  Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: a systematic review.

Authors:  Yael Schenker; Alicia Fernandez; Rebecca Sudore; Dean Schillinger
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Readability and content of patient information leaflets for endoscopic procedures.

Authors:  F S Gargoum; S T O'Keeffe
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 1.568

5.  A critical review of nutrition resources for General Practitioners focusing on healthy diet, including seafood.

Authors:  Jane Taylor; Alexandra McManus; Nicholson Claire
Journal:  Australas Med J       Date:  2011-12-31

6.  Elements for adequate informed consent in the surgical context.

Authors:  Hernando Abaunza; Klaus Romero
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Informed decision-making in elective major vascular surgery: analysis of 145 surgeon-patient consultations.

Authors:  Edward Etchells; Michel Ferrari; Alex Kiss; Nikki Martyn; Deborah Zinman; Wendy Levinson
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 8.  A review of surgical informed consent: past, present, and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions.

Authors:  Wouter K G Leclercq; Bram J Keulers; Marc R M Scheltinga; Paul H M Spauwen; Gert-Jan van der Wilt
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  The New Era of Informed Consent: Getting to a Reasonable-Patient Standard Through Shared Decision Making.

Authors:  Erica S Spatz; Harlan M Krumholz; Benjamin W Moulton
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  A randomised trial of conventional versus BAUS procedure-specific consent forms for transurethral resection of prostate.

Authors:  William J G Finch; Mark A Rochester; Robert D Mills
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 1.891

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.