Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) Guideline for difficult airway management. Part I

The Airway Management section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), and the Spanish Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) present the Guide for the comprehensive management of difficult airway in adult patients. Its principles are focused on the human factors, cognitive processes for decision-making in critical situations, and optimization in the progression of strategies application to preserve adequate alveolar oxygenation in order to enhance safety and the quality of care. The document provides evidence-based recommendations, theoretical-educational tools, and implementation tools, mainly cognitive aids, applicable to airway management in the fields of anesthesiology, critical care, emergencies, and prehospital medicine. For this purpose, an extensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA-R guidelines and was analyzed using the GRADE methodology. Recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology. Recommendations for sections with low-quality evidence were based on expert opinion through consensus reached via a Delphi questionnaire.

Autonomous patient consent for anaesthesia without preoperative consultation: a qualitative feasibility study including low-risk procedures

Background

Informed consent for anaesthesia is mandatory and requires provision of information and subsequent consent during consultation between anaesthesiologist and patient. Although information can be provided in an electronic format, it is unknown whether this a valid substitute for a consultation. We explored whether provision of digital information is equivalent to oral consultation and whether it enables patients to give electronic informed consent (e-consent) for anaesthesia.

Methods

Qualitative feasibility study using semi-structured interviews in 20 low-risk adults scheduled for minor surgery under general anaesthesia or procedural sedation at a university hospital. Data were analysed using a thematic content analysis approach. During the interviews, patients followed an application that provides information and subsequent e-consenting.

Results

The mean age was 50 yr and patients had good digital skills. Fifteen patients (75%) had previous experience of anaesthesia. The digital application provided enough information for all patients, but eight (40%) preferred consultation with an anaesthesiologist, mainly for personal contact. Patients had different information needs, with previous experiences leading to lower information needs. Nineteen patients had sufficient information to consent autonomously. Most patients considered separate anaesthesia consent superfluous to the surgical consent.

Conclusion

The digital application provided sufficient information and patients valued the information offered and the advantage of processing information at their own pace. This information made patients feel empowered to autonomously consent to anaesthesia without consultation. Remarkably, consent for anaesthesia was considered unimportant, because patients felt they had 'no choice' if they wanted to undergo surgery.

Regional anaesthesia: risk, consent and complications

The risks of regional anaesthesia relate primarily to the technical nature of the procedure, chief among them being neurological. While rare, the direct relationship between nerve damage and the procedure itself means that patients need to be aware of this complication when consent is sought. In order to give valid consent, a patient must be informed. The extent of the information required has been defined by a 2015 legal ruling which established that the standard is the expectation of a reasonable patient, rather than the information deemed consequential by a reasonable doctor. The implications of this for clinicians are profound, and mean that the process of consent must, for example, include alternatives to the proposed treatment. Additionally, patients must have capacity and give their consent without coercion. Effective communication of risk can be challenging. As well as the barriers to comprehension that can result from language, literacy and numeracy, clinicians need to be aware of their own biases, often in favour of a regional anaesthetic approach. Patients also have biases, and doctors must be aware of these in order to best target their provision of information. Careful use of language and employing adjuncts such as information leaflets and visual aids can help to maximise the individual's autonomy. Particular care must be taken in special situations such as where patients have capacity issues or time is limited by the emergency nature of the intervention.

Consent for spine surgery: an observational study

BACKGROUND

The tension between the ideal of informed consent and the reality of the process is under-investigated in spine surgery. Guidelines around consent imply a logical, plain-speaking process with a clear endpoint, agreement and signature yet surgeons' surveys and patient interviews suggest that surgeons' explanation is anecdotally variable and patient understanding remains poor. To obtain a more authentic reflection of practice, spine surgeons obtaining 'informed consent' for non-instrumented spine surgery were studied via video recording and risk/benefit discussions were analysed.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted at a single neurosurgical institution. Twelve video recordings involving six surgeons obtaining an informed consent for non-instrumented spine surgery were transcribed verbatim and blindly analysed using descriptive quantification and linguistic ethnography.

RESULTS

Ten (83%) consultations discussed surgical benefit but less than half (41%) quantified the likelihood of benefit from surgery. The most discussed risks were nerve damage or paralysis (92%), bleeding (92%), infection (92%), cerebrospinal fluid leak (83%) and bowel and bladder dysfunction (75%). Surgeons commonly used a quantitative statement of risk (58%) but only half of the risks were explained in words patients were likely to understand.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights inconsistencies in the way spine surgeons explain risks and obtain informed consent for 'simple' spine procedures in a real-world setting. There are wide disparities in the provision of informed consent, which may be encountered in other surgical fields. Direct observation and qualitative analysis can provide insights into the limitations of current informed consent practice and help guide future practice.

Are We Meeting the Current Standards of Consent for Anesthesia? An International Survey of Clinical Practice

Background

International application of existing guidelines and recommendations on anesthesia-specific informed consent is limited by differences in healthcare and legal systems. Understanding national and regional variations is necessary to determine future guidelines.

Material/Methods

Anonymous paper surveys on their practices regarding anesthesia-specific patient informed consent were sent to anesthesiologists in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Results

A total of 233 responses were received, representing 36%, 26%, and 24% of the practicing anesthesiologists in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, respectively. Although 85% of responders in Lithuania reported using separate forms to secure patient informed consent for anesthesia, 54.5% of responders in Estonia and 50% in Latvia reported using joint forms to secure patient informed consent for surgery and anesthesia. Incident rates were understated by 14.2% of responders and overstated by 66.4% (P<0.001), with the latter frequently quoting incident rates that are several to tens of times higher than those published internationally. Physicians obtaining consent in the outpatient setting were more satisfied with the process than those obtaining consent on the day of surgery, with 62.5% and 42.6%, respectively, agreeing that the informed consent forms provided a satisfactory description of complications (P=0.03). Patients were significantly less likely to read consent information when signing forms on the day of surgery than at earlier times (8.5% vs. 67.5%, P<0.001). Only 46.2% of respondents felt legally protected by the current consent process.

Conclusions

Anesthesia-specific informed patient consent practices differ significantly in the 3 Baltic states, with these practices often falling short of legal requirements. Efforts should be made to improving information accuracy, patient autonomy, and compliance with existing legal standards.

Clinical negligence

Clinical negligence may be tried under the civil or criminal legal system. Any General Medical Council proceedings are conducted separately. All cost time and money, and may be stressful for the patient and clinicians involved. In order to prove negligence, the claimant must prove the clinician had a duty of care, there was breach of that duty, and that breach caused injury. Interpretation of the law evolves as cases are heard in court and precedents are set. It is important for clinicians to keep up to date with developments in their specialty and good medical practice guidelines.

Informed consent for regional anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review describes the current framework for informed consent discussions for regional anesthesia practice from an ethical and medicolegal stand point as the cornerstone of the patient-physician relationship and the respect for patient autonomy. Recent guidelines and position statements from anesthesia societies have emphasized the importance of these discussions and their appropriate documentation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have shown that patients want to know more about both common and benign, as well as rare but serious adverse events, as it relates to their anesthetic care. Several strategies have been recently recommended as a means to facilitate a meaningful consent discussion and proper documentation in the perioperative environment.

SUMMARY

Defining the material risks of ultrasound-guided regional anesthetic procedures remains challenging, due in part to the difficulty in quantifying incidence rates of relatively rare events. However, well informed discussions are of great importance to support patient autonomy and lay a strong foundation for the patient-anesthesiologist relationship.

Informed consent: the view from the trenches

We review some of the recent literature on consent for surgical procedures and suggest a scheme for obtaining surgical consent.