Factors Associated with Quality of Informed Consent in Patients Admitted for Surgery: An Iranian Study

Promoting informed consent in a children's hospital in Tabriz, Iran: a best practice implementation project

INTRODUCTION

Informed consent is a continuous and dynamic process. It is a crucial part of healthcare procedures that becomes more complex in a pediatric clinical practice, where parents must make decisions for their children.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this implementation project was to evaluate the current practice and implement the best practice related to obtaining informed consent in a children's hospital in Tabriz, Iran.

METHODS

A clinical audit was undertaken using the JBI Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System (JBI PACES) tool. Five audit criteria representing the best-practice recommendations for informed consent were used. A baseline audit was conducted, followed by the implementation of multiple strategies. The project was finalized with a follow-up audit to determine change in practice.

RESULTS

The compliance rate of all criteria improved from baseline to follow-up audit. Criteria 1 (obtaining informed consent prior to all nursing procedures) and 5 (provision of information related to the necessity of the treatment) reached 97% compliance in the follow-up cycle. Criterion 4 (provision of information related to the nature and effect of the treatment) achieved 74% compliance. Both criteria 2 and 3 (provision of information related to alternative treatments and consequences of refusing treatment) reached 57% in the follow-up cycle. To improve compliance, meetings were organized with the heads of departments, nurses and residents regarding informed consent. Also, staff were encouraged to report cases where informed consent was not obtained.

CONCLUSION

The audit results indicated an improvement in obtaining informed consent in the included departments. The interventions that were employed can facilitate the implementation of evidence into clinical practice.

Infringement of the right to surgical informed consent: negligent disclosure and its impact on patient trust in surgeons at public general hospitals - the voice of the patient

BACKGROUND

There is little dispute that the ideal moral standard for surgical informed consent calls for surgeons to carry out a disclosure dialogue with patients before they sign the informed consent form. This narrative study is the first to link patient experiences regarding the disclosure dialogue with patient-surgeon trust, central to effective recuperation and higher adherence.

METHODS

Informants were 12 Israelis (6 men and 6 women), aged 29-81, who underwent life-saving surgeries. A snowball sampling was used to locate participants in their initial recovery process upon discharge.

RESULTS

Our empirical evidence indicates an infringement of patients' right to receive an adequate disclosure dialogue that respects their autonomy. More than half of the participants signed the informed consent form with no disclosure dialogue, and thus felt anxious, deceived and lost their trust in surgeons. Surgeons nullified the meaning of informed consent rather than promoted participants' moral agency and dignity.

DISCUSSION

Similarity among jarring experiences of participants led us to contend that the conduct of nullifying surgical informed consent does not stem solely from constraints of time and resources, but may reflect an underlying paradox preserving this conduct and leading to objectification of patients and persisting in paternalism. We propose a multi-phase data-driven model for informed consent that attends to patients needs and facilitates patient trust in surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient experiences attest to the infringement of a patient's right to respect for autonomy. In order to meet the prima facie right of respect for autonomy, moral agency and dignity, physicians ought to respect patient's needs. It is now time to renew efforts to avoid negligent disclosure and implement a patient-centered model of informed consent.

Nurses' knowledge and performance of the patients' bill of rights

BACKGROUND

Observance of the patients' bill of rights is one of the main features of moral codes in hospitals. In this regard, nurses bear great responsibility because they spend a long time with patients. Therefore, the continuous evaluation of the nurses' performance and assessing their knowledge about the patients' bill of rights are a need.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the nurses' awareness of the patients' rights and measure their performance in this regard. Research design and participants: This cross-sectional study was carried out in 2013. To measure the nurses' knowledge and performance, 250 nurses and 300 patients were surveyed. The participants were selected randomly from five teaching hospitals in Tehran, Iran. Two questionnaires, one for nurses (17 questions) and the other for patients (11 questions), were applied. The data were analyzed in SPSS software using descriptive and inferential statistics. Ethical consideration: The research protocol was submitted and approved by the research and ethics committees of the participating hospitals. Additionally, the consent of all of the participants was obtained before the study.

FINDINGS

The mean score of the nurses' knowledge regarding the patients' rights was acceptable (69.85 ± 11.7 of 85). Furthermore, the mean score of nurses' performance in observing the patients' rights was relatively acceptable (11.2 ± 4.6 of 22). More experienced and educated nurses had higher knowledge regarding the patients' rights, and patients with higher education level or experience of being hospitalized were less satisfied with the nurses' performance.

CONCLUSION

Nurses' knowledge of the patients' bill of rights was acceptable; however, observance of the patients' rights was not. It seems that notification of the patients' bill of rights has increased the nurses' awareness of the patients' rights, although improvement of the nurses' performance needs more extensive measures.

The quality of obtaining surgical informed consent

Background:

Informed consent goes beyond signing a form; it is a process of providing necessary information, helping patients make an informed decision, and actively participate in their treatment.

Aim/objective:

This study aimed to assess the quality of obtaining surgical informed consent in hospitals affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Research design/participants/context:

In a cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study, 300 patients were chosen through stratified sampling from seven hospitals affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Data were collected using a questionnaire developed by the researchers and analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistics on SPSS software.

Ethical considerations:

Ethical approval of this study was granted by Tehran University of Medical Sciences research ethics committee. Written informed consent for participation was obtained. The participants were reassured that their information will be used anonymously and their answers will not affect their treatment and care.

Findings:

The mean score of quality of acquisition of informed consent was 17.13 out of 35, indicating that the quality falls in the inappropriate category. The results indicate that 48% of the signatories do not even read the form before signing it. Among the 52% who did read the consent form, 61.3% mentioned varying degrees of incomprehensibility of the consent form and 94.2% mentioned the presence of incomprehensible technical, medical and legal vocabulary. Only 12% and 18% of respondents reported that they were not in hurry and they had no fear or anxiety, respectively, when signing the form. The quality of obtaining informed consent was higher in women, younger patients, patients with higher education, and those who had special surgeries.

Discussion:

This study shows a poor practice in obtaining surgical informed consent in Iran. It seems necessary to consider fundamental changes in the process of acquiring consent based on the temporal and local conditions of the patients.

Surgical informed consent in Iran—how much is it informed?

Introduction:

Informed consent constitutes one of the most important legal, professional, and ethical principles of a surgical operation. Consent obtained from a patient is only valid when the patient has received enough information regarding the proposed treatment option. This study aims to determine how much the patients are informed before undergoing surgery, as well as the factors influencing it in hospitals affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Method:

This is a cross-sectional, descriptive–analytic study of 300 patients undergoing surgery in 7 teaching hospitals affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The patients were recruited through clustered sampling. Data were collected using a questionnaire completed by interview. Data were analyzed on SPSS software using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Result:

The mean score of data provision for patients was 27.09 out of 60, indicating the level of information provided as unacceptable. Among 12 questions dealing with data provision, patients had received an intermediate level of information about nature of the disease, type of surgery, benefits and importance of the surgery, and complications of rejecting the recommended therapy. On the contrary, they had not received enough information about the surgical procedure, type of anesthesia, potential complications of surgery, potential risks of surgery, other therapy options instead of surgery, length of hospital stay for surgery, postsurgical follow-up, and expenses of the surgery. In the majority (85%) of cases, the surgeon was reported to be the information provider. Among the variables studied, level of information received was directly related to the patient’s education level.

Discussion:

The findings of this study indicate that during the process of obtaining an informed consent for surgery, patients do not receive sufficient information, and it is necessary to provide the essential information in an understandable manner adjusted for the patient’s level of education.