Anaesthetists' and surgeons' attitudes towards informed consent in the UK: an observational study

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：AAB Jamjoom (1) (2)
  S White (3)
  SM Walton (4)
  JG Hardman (1) (2)
  IK Moppett (1) (2)
  
• 刊名：BMC Medical Ethics
• 出版年：2010
• 出版时间：December 2010
• 年：2010
• 卷：11
• 期：1
• 全文大小：346KB
• 参考文献：1. / Department of Health's Good Practice in consent implementation guide: consent to examination or treatment Department of Health, London; 2001.
  2. Bernat JL, Peterson LM: Patient-Centered Informed Consent in Surgical Practice. / Arch Surg 2006, 141: 86鈥?2. CrossRef
  3. Dawes PJ, Davison P: Informed consent: what do patients want to know? / J Royal Soc Med 1994, 87: 149鈥?2.
  4. Beresford N, Seymour L, Vincent C, Moat N: Risks of elective cardiac surgery: what do patients want to know? / Heart 2001, 86: 626鈥?1. CrossRef
  5. Wiseman OJ, Wijewardena M, Calleary J, Masood J, Hill JT: 'Will you be doing my operation doctor?' Patient attitudes to informed consent. / Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004, 86: 462鈥?. CrossRef
  6. McKeague M, Windsor J: Patients' perception of the adequacy of informed consent: a pilot study of elective general surgical patients in Auckland. / New Zealand Medical Journal 2003, 116: U355.
  7. Krupp W, Spanehl O, Laubach W: Informed consent in Neurosurgery: Patients' Recall of Preoperative Discussion. / Acta Neurochir 2000, 142: 233鈥?. CrossRef
  8. Vincent JL: Information in the ICU: are we being honest with our patients? The results of a European questionnaire. / Intensive Care Med 1998, 24: 1251鈥?6. CrossRef
  9. Taylor KM, Shapiro M, Soskolne CL, Margolese RG: Physician Response to Informed Consent Regulations for Randomized Clinical Trials. / Cancer 1987, 60: 1415鈥?2. CrossRef
  10. Armstrong AP, Cole AA, Page RE: Informed consent: are we doing enough? / Br J Plas Surg 1997, 50: 637鈥?0. CrossRef
  11. O'Dwyer HM, Lyon SM, Fotheringham T, Lee MJ: Informed Consent for Interventional Radiology Procedures: A Survey Detailing Current European Practice. / Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2003, 26: 428鈥?3. CrossRef
  12. Cleeve S, Curry J: Attitudes to consent - a national survey. / J Ped Surg 2006, 41: 368鈥?1. CrossRef
  13. McManus PL, Wheatley KE: Consent and complications: risk disclosure varies widely between individual surgeons. / Ann Roy Coll Surg Engl 2003, 85: 79鈥?2. CrossRef
  14. Kay R, Siriwardena A: The process of informed consent for urgent abdominal surgery. / J Med Ethics 2001, 27: 157鈥?1. CrossRef
  15. Henley L, Benatar SR, Robertson BA, Ensink K: Informed consent - a survey of doctors' practices in South Africa. / S Afr Med J 1995, 85: 1273鈥?.
  16. Chapman IH: Informed Consent - Survey of Auckland N.Z. Anaesthetists' Practice and Attitudes. / Anaesth Intens Care 1997, 25: 671鈥?74.
  17. Moumjid N: Informed consent and risk communication in France. / Br Med J 2003, 327: 734鈥?. CrossRef
  18. Skene L: Informed consent: lessons from Australia. / Br Med J 2002, 324: 39鈥?1. CrossRef
  19. Likert R: A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. / Arch Psychol 1932, 140: 55.
  20. McLaughlan C: Royal College of Anaesthetists census report. / Bull Roy Coll Anaes 2008, 50: 2577鈥?.
  21. Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust / 48 BMLR 118 (CA) 1998.
  22. Narumi J, Miyazawa S, Miyata H, Suzuki A, Sugiura T, Oshiumi M, Kosaka S: Patients' understanding and opinion about informed consent for coronary angiography in a rural Japanese hospital. / Internal Med 1998, 37: 18鈥?0. CrossRef
  23. Weinman J: Providing written information for patients: psychological considerations. / J Roy Soc Med 1990, 83: 303鈥?.
  24. Calman KC: Communication of risk: choice, consent, and trust. / Lancet 2002, 360: 166鈥?. CrossRef
  25. Adams AM, Smith AF: Risk perception and communication: recent developments and implications for anaesthesia. / Anaesthesia 2001, 56: 745鈥?55. CrossRef
  26. Akkad A, Jackson C, Kenyon S, Dixon-Woods M, Taub M, Habiba M: Patients' perceptions of written consent: questionnaire study. / Br Med J 2006, 333: 528. CrossRef
  27. Pleat JM, Dunkin CSJ, Davies CE, Ripley RM, Tyler MPH: Prospective survey of factors affecting risk discussion during consent in a surgical specialty. / Br J Surg 2004, 91: 1377鈥?0. CrossRef
  28. General Medical Council: / Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. London: GMC; 2008.
  29. The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland: Consent for Anaesthesia. In / Revised Edition. London: AAGBI; 2006.
  30. Department of Health (UK): / Good Practice in Consent Implementation Guide: Consent to Examination or Treatment. London: Department of Health publications; 2001.
  31. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/11/2/prepub
  
• 作者单位：AAB Jamjoom (1) (2)
  S White (3)
  SM Walton (4)
  JG Hardman (1) (2)
  IK Moppett (1) (2)
  
  1. Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Medical School, NG7 2UH, Nottingham, UK
  2. Queen's Medical Centre, University Department of Anaesthesia, NG7 2UH, Nottingham, UK
  3. Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Sussex County Hospital, BN2 5BE, Brighton, UK
  4. Department of Anaesthesia, Eastbourne District General Hospital, BN21 2UD, Eastbourne, UK
  

文摘

Background The attitudes of patients' to consent have changed over the years, but there has been little systematic study of the attitudes of anaesthetists and surgeons in this process. We aimed to describe observations made on the attitudes of medical professionals working in the UK to issues surrounding informed consent. Method A questionnaire made up of 35 statements addressing the process of consent for anaesthesia and surgery was distributed to randomly selected anaesthetists and surgeons in Queen's Medical Centre (Nottingham), Royal Sussex County Hospital (Brighton) and Eastbourne District General Hospital (Eastbourne) during 2007. Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with statements regarding consent. Results Of 234 questionnaires distributed, 63% were returned. Of the respondents 79% agreed that the main purpose of the consent process is to respect patient autonomy. While 55% of the examined cohort agreed that the consent process maybe inappropriate as patients do not usually remember all the information given to them. Furthermore, 84% of the participants agreed that what the procedure aims to achieve should be explained to the patient during the consent process. While of the participants, over 70% agreed that major risks of incidence greater than 1/100 should be disclosed to the patient as part of the consent process. Conclusions The majority of respondents appear to hold attitudes in standing with current guidelines on informed consent however there was still a significant minority who held more paternalistic views to the consent process bringing into question the need for further training in the area.