Recommendations of the ESGE workshop on Informed Consent for Digestive Endoscopy. First European Symposium on Ethics in Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Kos, Greece, June 2003

The evolution of informed consent in gastroenterology

With medical litigation on the rise, physicians require a nuanced understanding of the legalities of consenting patients to reduce their liability while practising evidence-based medicine. This study aims to a) clarify the legal duties of gastroenterologists in the UK and USA when gaining informed consent and b) provide recommendations at the international and physician level to improve the consent process and reduce liability.A bibliometric analysis of the Web of Science database with the MeSH terms "gastroenterology" and "informed consent" yielded 383 articles, of which 228 were excluded due to not meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the top 50 articles, 48% were from American institutions and 16% were from the UK. Thematic analysis showed 72% of the articles discussed informed consent in relation to diagnostic procedures, 14% regarding treatment, and 14% regarding research participation.Both the USA and the UK have progressed from previously paternalistic Natanson case (1960) and Bolam test (1957), respectively, where physicians were held to the standard of a "reasonable and prudent medical doctor". The American Canterbury case (1972) and the British Montgomery case (2015) radically shifted the standard of disclosure during the consent process by requiring physicians to explain all information pertinent to a "reasonable patient".It is our recommendation that a two-pronged approach be taken; a) creation of international guidelines for consenting patients for invasive procedures in gastroenterology, and b) development of internationally standardised endoscopy consent forms containing all the details pertinent to a "reasonable patient".

Clinical practice guidelines for safe performance of endoscopic ultrasound/ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage: 2018

Endoscopic ultrasound/ultrasonography‐guided biliary drainage (EUS‐BD) is a relatively new modality for biliary drainage after failed or difficult transpapillary biliary cannulation. Despite its clinical utility, EUS‐BD can be complicated by severe adverse events such as bleeding, perforation, and peritonitis. The aim of this paper is to provide practice guidelines for safe performance of EUS‐BD as well as safe introduction of the procedure to non‐expert centers. The guidelines comprised patient–intervention–comparison–outcome‐formatted clinical questions (CQs) and questions (Qs), which are background statements to facilitate understanding of the CQs. A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Statement, evidence level, and strength of recommendation were created according to the GRADE system. Four committees were organized: guideline creation, expert panelist, evaluation, and external evaluation committees. We developed 13 CQs (methods, device selection, supportive treatment, management of adverse events, education and ethics) and six Qs (definition, indication, outcomes and adverse events) with statements, evidence levels, and strengths of recommendation. The guidelines explain the technical aspects, management of adverse events, and ethics of EUS‐BD and its introduction to non‐expert institutions.

Informed consent in colonoscopy: A comparative analysis of 2 methods

BACKGROUND

The manner in which informed consent is obtained varies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the level of knowledge about colonoscopy and comparing 2 methods of obtaining informed consent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comparative, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted on patients that underwent colonoscopy in a public hospital (Group A) and in a private hospital (Group B). Group A received information verbally from a physician, as well as in the form of printed material, and Group B only received printed material. A telephone survey was carried out one or 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 176 subjects (group A [n=55] and group B [n=121]). As regards education level, 69.88% (n=123) of the patients had completed university education, 23.29% (n= 41) secondary level, 5.68% (n=10) primary level, and the remaining subjects (n=2) had not completed any level of education. All (100%) of the subjects knew the characteristics of the procedure, and 99.43% were aware of its benefits. A total of 97.7% received information about complications, 93.7% named some of them, and 25% (n=44) remembered major complications. All the subjects received, read, and signed the informed consent statement before the study. There were no differences between the groups with respect to knowledge of the characteristics and benefits of the procedure, or the receipt and reading of the consent form. Group B responded better in relation to complications (P=.0027) and group A had a better recollection of the major complications (P<.0001). Group A had a higher number of affirmative answers (P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of verbal and written information provides the patient with a more comprehensive level of knowledge about the procedure.

Informed consent for digestive endoscopy

Informed consent is necessary in good clinical practice. It is based on the patient´s ability to understand the information about the proposed procedure, the potential consequences and complications, and alternative options. The information is written in understandable language and is fortified by verbal discussion between physician and patient. The aim is to explain the problem, answer all questions and to ensure that the patient understands the problems and is able to make a decision. The theory is clear but what happens in daily practice?

Sedation in digestive endoscopy: the Athens international position statements

BACKGROUND

Guidelines and practice standards for sedation in endoscopy have been developed by various national professional societies. No attempt has been made to assess consensus among internationally recognized experts in this field.

AIM

To identify areas of consensus and dissent among international experts on a broad range of issues pertaining to the practice of sedation in digestive endoscopy.

METHODS

Thirty-two position statements were reviewed during a 1 (1/2)-day meeting. Thirty-two individuals from 12 countries and four continents, representing the fields of gastroenterology, anaesthesiology and medical jurisprudence heard evidence-based presentations on each statement. Level of agreement among the experts for each statement was determined by an open poll.

RESULTS

The principle recommendations included the following: (i) sedation improves patient tolerance and compliance for endoscopy, (ii) whenever possible, patients undergoing endoscopy should be offered the option of having the procedure either with or without sedation, (iii) monitoring of vital signs as well as the levels of consciousness and pain/discomfort should be performed routinely during endoscopy, and (iv) endoscopists and nurses with appropriate training can safely and effectively administer propofol to low-risk patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

While the standards of practice vary from country to country, there was broad agreement among participants regarding most issues pertaining to sedation during endoscopy.

Patient satisfaction with endoscopy measurement and assessment

BACKGROUND

Several factors could influence patient satisfaction with endoscopy including technical quality of care, comfort and tolerability of the procedure, whether informed consent has been obtained, the level of communication with staff before and after the procedure, and delays in appointments.

AIM

To assess what factors should be measured in assessing patient satisfaction by using a 16-point questionnaire based on the informed consent recommendations of the first workshop at Kos, and of the criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and to compare the response of patients with gastroenterologists and the support staff.

METHOD

The questionnaire was answered by 81 patients, 71 gastroenterologists and 36 support staff (nurses and receptionists). It graded the relative importance of different factors which influenced the perception of satisfaction in those undergoing endoscopy. These factors included: the waiting time for appointment, the explanation received at various stages before and after the procedure, the reception process, the importance of premedication against pain and discomfort, privacy and satisfaction related to findings at the procedure.

RESULTS

Thirteen of the 16 factors were generally graded as important for patient satisfaction. The finding at endoscopy, a written explanation and the alternatives to the endoscopic procedure were regarded as of lesser importance. Gastroenterologists tended to rate the importance of a written explanation and the explanations from the nurses before and after the procedure lower than did the patients and nursing staff.

CONCLUSIONS

The courtesy and personal manner of the entire medical staff, as evidenced by the explanation of the procedure by the various physicians before and after and the process of admission, were generally rated of the highest importance. The nurses' ranking of the various factors was closer to that of the patients than of the gastroenterologists.

Ethical issues in the management of elderly patients in gastroenterology and digestive endoscopy

Over the past 30 years, the population of old-aged citizens in most Western countries has been dramatically increasing. These people usually have several comorbidities and often lose their independence, mostly due to neurodegenerating diseases. Benign and malignant gastrointestinal disorders are very common in all age groups, but their incidence increases with age, requiring investigation and therapy. In this setting several ethical issues arise, mostly related to the extent of invasive investigations, adverse drug reactions due to polypharmacy, the risk:benefit ratio of endoscopic therapy, and the quality and validity of informed consent in this frail elderly population.

Survey of consent practices for inpatient colonoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present paper was to determine informed consent practices for inpatient, open-access colonoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

A two-part prospective study incorporating (i) an audit of consent practices for colonoscopy and ERCP; and (ii) a questionnaire directed at gastroenterologists and interns regarding information imparted to patients in the process of acquiring informed consent, was undertaken at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Western Australia. Study subjects consisted of inpatients undergoing open-access colonoscopy and/or ERCP at the study center commencing May 2003; and gastroenterologists and interns at the study center.

RESULTS

Written consent was obtained by junior medical staff in 89% of cases. Response rates for the questionnaire was 100% from interns, and 91% from gastroenterologists. Of interns surveyed, 93% had witnessed a colonoscopy, and 59% had witnessed an ERCP. For 12% of interns, colonoscopic bleeding or perforation were not always mentioned. Colonoscopy failure rate and perforation were overestimated by 51% and 63% of interns, respectively. Only 56% of interns always mentioned pancreatitis as a complication of ERCP. The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis was overestimated by 25% of interns. Only 40% of gastroenterologists always provided additional information to patients whose consent was obtained by someone else. Written material was not routinely provided for patients. Consent was usually obtained on the day of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Written consent for inpatients undergoing open-access colonoscopy and ERCP is rarely obtained by the proceduralist. There is substantial variability in the information provided to patients. Guidelines are required to ensure best practice in this area.