Treatment informed consent aims to preserve the autonomy of patients in the clinician – patient relationship so as to ensure valid consent. An acceptable method of evaluating understanding of consent information is by assessing the extent of recall by patients of the pieces information believed to have been passed across. When concerns are not satisfactorily addressed from the patients’ perspective, recall of consent information may be low. This study is a questionnaire – based cross – sectional interview of consecutive adult (...) surgical patients who could give their respective medical histories and who were booked for elective major surgical procedures over a period of 7 months in a tertiary health institution in southeastern Nigeria. Four to five days after a formal consent session, during ward admission, extent of recall of information on the nature of the disease condition or diagnosis, the nature of the planned procedure and the risks involved in the planned procedure were assessed and analyzed on the background of how satisfying the consent sessions were from individual patient’s perspective. Generally, the recall of nature of disease condition and nature of planned procedure is better than recall of risks involved in the planned procedure. More specifically however, recall in these 3 domains is significantly better among the patients that affirmed that their concerns were satisfactorily addressed. The findings from this study support that no effort should be spared in ensuring that the consent information are satisfying to the patients from the patients’ viewpoint. (shrink)

Background: Informed consent goes beyond signing a form; it is a process of providing necessary information, helping patients make an informed decision, and actively participate in their treatment. Aim/objective: This study aimed to assess the quality of obtaining surgical informed consent in hospitals affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Research design/participants/context: In a cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study, 300 patients were chosen through stratified sampling from seven hospitals affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Data were collected using a questionnaire developed (...) by the researchers and analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistics on SPSS software. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval of this study was granted by Tehran University of Medical Sciences research ethics committee. Written informed consent for participation was obtained. The participants were reassured that their information will be used anonymously and their answers will not affect their treatment and care. Findings: The mean score of quality of acquisition of informed consent was 17.13 out of 35, indicating that the quality falls in the inappropriate category. The results indicate that 48% of the signatories do not even read the form before signing it. Among the 52% who did read the consent form, 61.3% mentioned varying degrees of incomprehensibility of the consent form and 94.2% mentioned the presence of incomprehensible technical, medical and legal vocabulary. Only 12% and 18% of respondents reported that they were not in hurry and they had no fear or anxiety, respectively, when signing the form. The quality of obtaining informed consent was higher in women, younger patients, patients with higher education, and those who had special surgeries. Discussion: This study shows a poor practice in obtaining surgical informed consent in Iran. It seems necessary to consider fundamental changes in the process of acquiring consent based on the temporal and local conditions of the patients. (shrink)

Introduction: Informed consent constitutes one of the most important legal, professional, and ethical principles of a surgical operation. Consent obtained from a patient is only valid when the patient has received enough information regarding the proposed treatment option. This study aims to determine how much the patients are informed before undergoing surgery, as well as the factors influencing it in hospitals affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Method: This is a cross-sectional, descriptive–analytic study of 300 patients undergoing surgery in (...) 7 teaching hospitals affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The patients were recruited through clustered sampling. Data were collected using a questionnaire completed by interview. Data were analyzed on SPSS software using descriptive and inferential statistics. Result: The mean score of data provision for patients was 27.09 out of 60, indicating the level of information provided as unacceptable. Among 12 questions dealing with data provision, patients had received an intermediate level of information about nature of the disease, type of surgery, benefits and importance of the surgery, and complications of rejecting the recommended therapy. On the contrary, they had not received enough information about the surgical procedure, type of anesthesia, potential complications of surgery, potential risks of surgery, other therapy options instead of surgery, length of hospital stay for surgery, postsurgical follow-up, and expenses of the surgery. In the majority (85%) of cases, the surgeon was reported to be the information provider. Among the variables studied, level of information received was directly related to the patient’s education level. Discussion: The findings of this study indicate that during the process of obtaining an informed consent for surgery, patients do not receive sufficient information, and it is necessary to provide the essential information in an understandable manner adjusted for the patient’s level of education. (shrink)