Effectiveness of consenting in Otorhinolaryngology

• Authors: Nnaemeka Okpala , Amala Okpala , Gareth John , Hugh Cox
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Informed consent in today’s medical practice has become a cornerstone and a routine ethical component playing a major role in forming a therapeutic alliance with the patient. The present study sought to analyse the effectiveness of the consent forms and the consenting process in Otorhinolaryngology. This three month questionnaire-based study covered varying operations which ranged from tonsillectomies, grommet insertions to pharyngeal pouch stapling. Twenty-nine percent of consent forms were signed on the day of the operation. Of the patients who received leaflets (51%) during the process of informed consent, a majority (88%) found it useful. The respondents were satisfied with the explanation of the procedure, benefits and complications (70–74%). Majority kept their consent forms at home (60%) and did not bother engaging in further search with regards to the information in the consent form (81%). Majority of the patients agreed that they had enough time to make an informed consent. Patients were satisfied with the consent process but more can be done to improve the consenting process.

Keywords

EN

Ear; Nose and Throat (ENT); Informed consent; Consenting; Surgery

• Publisher: De Gruyter Open
• Journal: Open Medicine
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 7
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 198-202

Dates

published

1 - 4 - 2012

online

3 - 2 - 2012

Contributors

author

Nnaemeka Okpala

• Department of Otolaryngology, Frimley Park Hospital, Portsmouth Road, Frimley, Surrey, GU16 7UJ, UK

author

Amala Okpala

• Department of Surgery, Central General Hospital, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

author

Gareth John

• Department of Otolaryngology, Poole General Hospital, Longfleet Road, Poole, Dorset, BH15 2JB, UK

author

Hugh Cox

• Department of Otolaryngology, Poole General Hospital, Longfleet Road, Poole, Dorset, BH15 2JB, UK

References

• [1] Hoehner PJ. Ethical aspects of informed consent in obstetric anesthesia - new challenges and solutions. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 2003;15(8): 58–600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8180(02)00505-6[Crossref]
• [2] Jones JW, McCullough LW, Richman BW. Informed Consent: Its Not Just Signing a Form. Thoracic Surgery Clinics 2005;15(4): 451–460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.thorsurg.2005.06.001[Crossref]
• [3] General Medical Council (1998). Seeking Patients’ Consent: The Ethical Considerations. London: GMC
• [4] Hopper KD, TenHave TR, Tully DA, Hall TE. The readability of currently used surgical / procedure consent forms in the United States. Surgery. 1998 May; 123(5):496–503 http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/msy.1998.87236[Crossref]
• [5] Langdon IJ, Hardin R, Learmonth ID. Informed consent for total hip arthroplasty: does a written information sheet improve recall by patients? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2002; 84: 404–408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/003588402760978201[Crossref]
• [6] Adachi H. Informed consent in cardiovascular surgery. Kyobu Geka 2008 Mar; 61(3): 231–237 [PubMed]
• [7] Glock RS, Goldim JR. Informed consent in gerontology. Eubios J Asian Int Bioeth. 2003 Jan;13(1):6–8
• [8] Nichols CM, Pendlebury LC, Jennell J. Chart documentation of informed consent for operative vaginal delivery: Is it adequate? South Med J. 2006; 99(12):133–9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.smj.0000243076.86803.09[Crossref]
• [9] Chappell D, Taylor C. A survey of the consent practices of specialist orthodontics practitioners in the North-West of England. J Orthod. 2007 Mar; 34(1): 36–45 http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/146531207225021897[Crossref]
• [10] 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: 462–464 http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/1478708041109[Crossref]
• [11] Philipson SJ, Doyle MA, Gabram SG, Nightingale C, Philipson EH. Informed consent for research: a study to evaluate readability and processability to effect change. J Investig Med. 1995 Oct;43(5):459–67
• [12] Mallardi V. The origin of informed consent. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312–27 [PubMed]
• [13] Ibrahim T, Ong SM, Taylor GJS-C. The new consent form: is it any better. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004; 86:206–209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/003588404323043364[Crossref]
• [14] Goodyear PW, Anderson AR, Kelly G. How informed is consent in a modern ENT department. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008 Aug; 265(8):95–61 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0638-4[Crossref]
• [15] Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? The American Journal of Surgery. 2009; 198(3): 420–435 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.02.010[Crossref]
• [16] Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2009 May; 9(5):485–93 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70128-1[WoS][Crossref]
• [17] Campbell B. New consent forms issued by the Department of Health. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004 Nov; 86(6): 457–458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/1478708041082[Crossref]
• [18] Berry NH, Phillips JS, Salam MA. Written Consent - A Prospective Audit of Practices for ENT Patients. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008 March; 90(2): 150–152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/003588408X261564[Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/s11536-011-0131-0