Siddins MT, Klinken EM, Vocale LR
Adequacy of consent documentation in a specialty surgical unit: time for community debate? [Journal Article]
Med J Aust 2009 Sep 7; 191(5):259-62.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the adequacy of consent documentation related to descriptions of intended procedures, associated risks and treatment alternatives, and to analyse trends in the adequacy of consent documentation in a specialty surgical unit. DESIGN, PATIENTS AND
SETTING: Retrospective reviews of consent forms for all patients on the Urology Unit waiting list of the Repatriation General Hospital, Adelaide on three occasions. Reviews were undertaken during 2005, 2007 and 2008, with a minimum of 12 months between reviews.
RESULTS: 1280 consent documents were evaluated. No trend in the studied criteria of adequacy of documentation was observed during the study period. Overall, 18.5% of consent forms described procedures using plain language. In 15.3% of consent forms, a significant component of the procedure was described using only an acronym, without further explanation. In 6.6% of consent forms, procedure descriptions contained only acronyms, abbreviations or technical terminology, with no plain language word. The purpose of the operation was conveyed in 10.1% of consent forms. Relevant risks were provided in 4.1%. Any indication of the magnitude of procedural risks was provided in only four of 1280 forms. No consent form provided information about alternative treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe these findings are broadly representative of current hospital practice and that the community should consider whether an acronym or technical terminology is appropriate for documenting consent. If not, can minimum practice standards be defined, and should any emerging recommendations be mandated?
More from this journal |
