Say what? Patients have poor immediate memory of major risks of interscalene block disclosed during the informed consent discussion

Virtual Reality-Assisted Informed Consent for Anesthesia: A Prospective and Randomized Proof-of-Concept Study

Background/Objectives: Informed consent for anesthesia poses both legal challenges and problems of understandable communication. Fulfilling all the requirements through anesthesiologists directly interacting with patients is a time- and staff-consuming strategy. Given today's smart technologies, notably including virtual reality (VR), we explored in a prospective randomized study whether 'VR-assisted informed consent' could improve this situation. Methods: Fifty patients scheduled for orthopedic surgery were randomized. In the control group, informed consent was obtained via patient-specialist dialogs only. The patients in the study group, wearing a head-mounted display, watched an 8 min immersive 3D movie with the standard explanations of general anesthesia, followed by a patient-specialist dialog to address open questions. The time spent on the dialogs in both groups was evaluated as the primary outcome variable. As secondary variables, we analyzed both a three-item Likert scale on patient satisfaction with the VR experience and cost differences between both groups. Results: Patient-specialist dialogs were carried on for median (IQR) durations of 93 (20-182) seconds in the study group versus 665 (261-829) seconds in the control group (p < 0.001). All the patients exposed to VR rated this experience as favorable (87.5%) or neutral (12.5%). Based on anesthesiologists' incomes in the US and UK, our approach would reduce the staff expenditure for each patient-specialist dialog by median amounts of USD ≈40 or ≈11, respectively (2 × p < 0.001). Conclusions: 'VR-assisted informed consent' for anesthesia is well accepted by patients and reduces the time requirements for patient-specialist dialogs, thus pointing out a potential avenue towards increasing the work-time efficiency of anesthesiologists.

Coerced consent in clinical research: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the low-risk nature of participation in most clinical anesthesia trials, subject recruitment on the same day as surgery is often restricted due to the concerns of researchers and local research ethics boards that same-day consent may not afford adequate time and opportunity for patients to weigh and make decisions, as well as perceptions of patient vulnerability immediately prior to surgery that could impact the voluntary nature and the rigor of the informed consent process. However, specialties such as anesthesiology, critical care, interventional radiology, and emergency medicine have a varied pattern of practice and patient acquaintance that does not typically afford the luxury of time or, in many cases, advance consent for participation in research. Indeed, the initial encounter between anesthesiologists and patients undergoing elective procedures routinely occurs on the day of surgery. Concerns of coercion related to same-day consent for clinical anesthesia research trials have not been borne out in the literature, and represent a significant obstacle to clinical researchers, as well as to the patients who are denied opportunities for potential benefit through participation in research studies.

METHODS

We describe the protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial examining the voluntariness of patient consent, solicited either in advance of surgery or on the same day, to participate in an anesthesia research study at Women's College Hospital. One hundred fourteen patients scheduled to undergo ambulatory anterior cruciate ligament repair facilitated by general anesthesia with an adductor canal block will be randomized for recruitment either (a) in the pre-operative assessment clinic before the day of surgery or (b) on the day of surgery, to be approached for consent to participate in a fabricated research study of adjunct medications in adductor canal blocks. Regardless of allocation, patients in both groups will receive the same routine standard of care and will complete a post-operative questionnaire to signal perceptions of undue influence in the process of providing informed consent for the fabricated trial.

DISCUSSION

This study will inform trial design and practice guidelines surrounding the amount of time patients ought to be afforded in order to make durable decisions to participate (or not) in clinical research studies. This is expected to impact trial recruitment in a variety of clinical settings where researchers have only brief opportunities to interface with patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (OSF), registration #46twc, on 2023-Mar-17.

Creation of a risk of harms informed consent form for dry needling: A nominal group technique

BACKGROUND

When consenting patients to dry needling treatment, it is necessary to inform patients of potential risks of harms.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify elements and framework for an Informed Consent (IC) risk of harm statement to improve patient decision-making.

DESIGN

A virtual Nominal Group Technique (vNGT) methodology was used to achieve consensus among participants to identify what needs to be on a consent form, how it should be framed, and what it should state so patients understand the true risks.

METHODS

Eligible participants were identified as one of four groups: legal expert, policy expert, dry needling expert, or patient. The vNGT session consisted of 5 rounds of idea generation and final consensus voting which lasted for 2 h.

RESULTS

Five individuals consented to participate. Of the 27 original ideas, 22 reached consensus including ones specifically related to a risk of harms statement: identifying risks and discomforts, identify different sensations, and using a classification to order risks by severity. Consensus was achieved with percent agreement of ≥ 80%. The constructed risk of harm statement had a reading level of grade 7 and provided a list of stratified risks associated with dry needling.

CONCLUSION

The generated risk of harm statement can be incorporated on IC forms that require disclosure of risks in both the clinical and research setting. Additionally, further elements were identified by panel participants about defining the framework for an IC form outside of the risk of harm statement.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV REGISTRATION

NCT05560100 (29/09/22).

Preoperative assessment of expectations, anxiety and preferences for anesthesia in patients undergoing ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery

Objective : In this observational study, we aimed at measuring preoperative anxiety and preferences for anesthesia in patients undergoing knee arthroscopic surgery. Background : Little is known about preoperative anxieties, expectations and preferences of patients undergoing surgery, for which both spinal or general anesthesia can be provided. Literature shows that spinal anesthesia is associated with lower postoperative co- morbidity and mortality rates as compared to general anesthesia (1-2). Anxiety itself is an important factor influencing patients’ outcome (3). Methods : Every patients >18 years old undergoing an ambulatory arthroscopy of the knee in the surgical day care center of the AZ Nikolaas (in Sint-Niklaas and Beveren), was asked preoperatively to fill in a questionnaire. The questionnaire focused both on the patients’ knowledge about and preference of anesthesia, as well as their preoperative anxieties and worries. Patients were asked to score preoperative anxiety on a 5-point anxiety scale for any of 9 aspects/complications of the anesthetic (placement of the IV cannula, spinal puncture, death, awareness, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, cognitive impairment, infection, blood loss). During the study period, from January 11/01/ 2019 to 11/06/2019, a total of 806 patients were asked to fill out the questionnaire. 201 of these patients completed the questionnaire and were consequently enrolled in the study. This work has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the AZ Nikolaas on 11/11/2018 and by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital in Antwerp (UZA) on 19/11/ 2018. Results : Seventy-five % of patients had a clear preference for their anesthesia technique. Of these, 2/3 opted for general anesthesia. Patients mainly based their preference on a subjective feeling ; a minority had discussed the choice with their surgeon or general practitioner. Rarely, patients indicated the wish to talk to the anesthesiologist about their choice. Fear for a spinal puncture occurred in 40% of patients (median anxiety score 3/5, range 1-5) and was therefore the most prominent anxiety in this patient population. Conclusions : Patients’ greater preference for general over spinal anesthesia was clearly based rather on a subjective than an objective basis. Forty 40% of patients had a substantial fear for spinal puncture. By informing patients about the risks and complications of the different anesthesia techniques, anxiety feelings can probably be alleviated, and a well-judged decision about their anesthesia technique can be made. There is room for improvement in communication and discussion between patients and anesthesiologists about the patients’ choice of anesthesia technique.