An audit of consenting practices in a district general hospital. Can we improve?

Improving Consent Documentation in the Medical Intensive Care Unit

The contemporary patient-centered medical practice relies upon the acquisition of informed consent, which serves as written proof that the patient has recognized and agreed to the risks and benefits of their treatment. Well-documented informed consent forms are not only reflective of important ethical practices in medicine but can also serve as legal documents to protect healthcare providers from undue liabilities. We conducted a quality improvement project with the intention to improve the accuracy and completeness of consent form documentation in the medical intensive care unit. The evaluation of consent forms before our intervention revealed that only 6.8% were correctly completed, with an average of 10.2 out of 14 (73%) essential items correct. Our intervention involved a multifaceted approach that included targeted education in combination with process improvement. The post-intervention results at one month revealed improvement in consent form accuracy from 6.8% to 60% (p = 0.0001), with an increase in the average number of essential items documented correctly from 10.2 to 13.5 (p = 0.0001). Data were collected three months post-intervention to evaluate for sustained improvement. Results revealed a significant decrease in consent form accuracy to 39% when compared to the one-month post-intervention data but still maintained a statistically significant improvement when compared to initial baseline data; 6.8% to 39% (p = <0.01). Following the intervention, overall consent form accuracy improved significantly at our institution. Furthermore, these positive adjustments persisted when assessed at three months post-intervention despite the decrease as compared to one-month post-intervention. This trend suggests that our multifaceted intervention was able to increase the quality and accuracy of consent form documentation successfully.

Preoperative informed consent for mandibular third molar surgeries: A survey analysis in a subset of dentists and oral surgeons in Saudi Arabia

Objectives

The objective of this study was to identify patterns of obtaining preoperative informed consent from patients undergoing mandibular third molar surgeries, in a subset of general dentists and oral surgeons in Saudi Arabia, and to compare the consenting patterns based on the clinician’s rank, years of experience, place of work and gender.

Methods

A prospective questionnaire based study was designed and data was obtained through an online survey from 102 participants who were selected for the study. Demographic information, clinician experience, type of informed consent obtained and information related to discussion of legal implications and complications were collected. Descriptive analysis of the obtained data and statistical comparisons using cross tabulation and Pearson Chi-Square test with a 95% significance level (P < 0.05) were done between the independents demographic variables and dependent variables pertaining to patterns of preoperative consenting.

Results

The survey response rate was 81.3% (n = 83), with 59.04% general dentists and 40.96% oral surgeons. The ratio of male to female respondents was approximately 3:1. Majority of the respondents reported a clinical experience of less than 10 years (77.11%) and were reportedly working in the private sector (73.49%). Nearly 80% of the respondents (79.52%) mentioned obtaining preoperative consent for mandibular third molar surgeries and was significantly higher (p-value – 0.018) among clinicians with more than 5 years of experience (90%). While 38.5% of the respondents indicated obtaining both a written and verbal consent, 53.01% obtained only a verbal consent. Majority of the respondents were aware of the legal implications of obtaining informed consent (81.93%) and disclosed incidental complications to their patients (91.57%). However, differences in the perceived post-operative complications associated with mandibular third molar surgeries were observed between general dentists and oral surgeons.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate a good level of knowledge about informed consent for mandibular third molar surgery and its legal implications among the dentists and oral surgeons who were surveyed. However, to avoid painful medico-legal disputes, a written informed consent signed by patients along with a witness should be considered mandatory.