Informed consent for vascular intervention
Lara Temple-Doig1, Malcolm Gordon, Tim Buckenham
1Christchurch Vascular Group and Department of Surgery, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Insights
Documentation of informed consent differs significantly between vascular surgery and radiology procedures. While radiology consent is often documented by consultants, surgery consent documentation is less consistent, impacting patient information.
Area of Science:
- Medical Auditing
- Patient Safety
- Informed Consent
Background:
- Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical medical practice.
- Ensuring adequate documentation of the informed consent process is crucial for patient safety and legal compliance.
- Previous literature highlights variability in informed consent practices.
Purpose of the Study:
- To audit and compare the documentation of informed consent for vascular surgical and radiological procedures.
- To identify differences in the consent process between surgical and radiological interventions.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective audit of 100 randomly selected patient records (51 surgical, 49 radiological) at Christchurch Hospital.
- Review of clinic letters, patient notes, and consent forms to assess documentation quality and information provision.
Main Results:
- Consultant sign-off on consent forms was significantly higher in radiology (94%) than surgery (4%).
- Discussion of risks was better documented in surgical (86%) versus radiological (41%) procedures.
- Additional patient information leaflets were provided more often in surgery (12%) than radiology (0%).
Conclusions:
- Informed consent documentation at the audited center is comparable to existing literature.
- Significant disparities exist in the documentation of informed consent between vascular surgery and radiology.
Aim:
To audit documentation of the process of informed consent in patients undergoing vascular surgical and radiological procedures.
Method:
A retrospective audit of randomly selected elective vascular radiological and surgical admissions was undertaken at Christchurch Hospital (Christchurch, New Zealand) to assess documented evidence of the consent process. Clinic letters, handwritten entries in patient notes, and consent forms were scrutinised and data collated on which medical practitioners took consent, what details of the consent process were documented, and what additional information was made available to patients.
Results:
100 sets of notes were reviewed (surgical n=51, radiological n=49). For patients undergoing vascular surgery, the consent form was signed by a consultant in 2 (4%) sets of notes compared to 46 (94%) for patients undergoing vascular radiological intervention (p<0.001). All radiology consent forms were signed on the day of the procedure whereas 43 (84%) of surgical consent forms were signed before the day of surgery (p<0.01). Documentation that risks had been discussed with the patient was present in 44 (86%) sets of surgical notes compared to 20 (41%) radiology notes (p<0.001). Additional information (e.g. College of Surgeons' information leaflets) was supplied to 6 (12%) surgical patients and none of the patients undergoing radiological intervention (p<0.05).
Conclusions:
In our centre, documentation of the process of informed consent compares favourably with the published literature. This study demonstrates significant differences in documentation between surgery and radiology.
Related Concept Videos
01:23Peripheral Artery Disease V: Postoperative Nursing Management
01:22Aneurysm IV: Nursing Management
01:19Imaging Studies VII: Vascular Imaging
01:28Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
01:10Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure
01:27Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care