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".

Communicating About Mortality in Health Decision Support: 'What and Why and When, and How and Where and Who'

The Covid-19 pandemic has only accelerated the need and desire to deal more openly with mortality, because the effect on survival is central to the comprehensive assessment of harms and benefits needed to meet a 'reasonable patient' legal standard. Taking the view that this requirement is best met through a multi-criterial decision support tool, we offer our preferred answers to the questions of What should be communicated about mortality in the tool, and How, given preferred answers to Who for, Who by, Why, When, and Where. Summary measures, including unrestricted Life Expectancy and Restricted Mean Survival Time are found to be reductionist and relative, and not as easy to understand and communicate as often asserted. Full lifetime absolute survival curves should be presented, even if they cannot be 'evidence-based' beyond trial follow-up limits, along with equivalent measures for other criteria in the (necessarily) multi-criterial decision. A decision support tool should relieve the reasonable person of the resulting calculation burden.

Informed consent, shared-decision making and a reasonable patient's wishes based on a cross-sectional, national survey in the USA using a hypothetical scenario

OBJECTIVE

In approximately half the states in the USA, and more recently in the UK, informed consent is legally defined as what a reasonable patient would wish to know. Our objective was to discern the information needs of a hospitalised, 'reasonable patient' during the informed-consent process.

DESIGN

We performed a cross-sectional study to develop a survey instrument and better define 'reasonable person' in relation to informed consent in a hypothetical scenario where an invasive procedure may be an option.

SETTING

A 10-question survey was administered from April 19 through 22 October 2018 to three groups: student nurses (n=76), health professions educators (n=63) and a US national population (n=1067).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the average intensity, on a 5-point scale, by which survey groups wished to have each of 10 questions answered. The secondary outcome was to discern relationships between survey demographics and the intensity by which participants wanted an answer.

RESULTS

Despite substantial demographic differences in the nursing-student group and health-professions-educator group, the average intensity scores were within 0.2 units on nine of 10 questions. The national survey revealed a strong desire to have an answer to each question (range 3.98-4.60 units). It showed that women desired answers more than men and older adults desired answers more than younger adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on responses to 10 survey questions regarding wishes of people in a situation where an invasive procedure may be necessary, the vast majority want an answer to each question. They wanted to know about all treatment options, risky drugs, decision aids, who will perform the procedure, and the cost. They wanted their advocate present, periodic review of their medical record, a full day to review documents and expected outcomes and restrictions after the procedure.