Related Experiment Videos
Informed consent for intravascular administration of contrast material: how much is enough?
1Department of Radiology, Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.
Insights
Informed consent for contrast material administration is crucial. A written consent detailing common risks is most effective, requiring less time than physician counseling.
Area of Science:
- Radiology
- Medical Ethics
Background:
- Informed consent is essential before administering intravascular contrast material.
- The effectiveness of different consent methods is not well-established.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the usefulness of informed consent prior to intravascular contrast material administration.
- To compare different methods of patient counseling regarding risks and risk factors.
Main Methods:
- Four patient groups received varying levels of information: none, written common risks, written all risks, and physician counseling on all risks.
- Time taken for consent and post-procedure test scores were recorded for each group.
Main Results:
- Written consent detailing common risks (Group 2) was as effective as more extensive methods (Groups 3 and 4) in patient understanding.
- Physician counseling required significantly more time (11.4 minutes) compared to written consent (6.2 minutes for all risks).
- Extensive physician counseling could consume up to 7% of a radiologist's time.
Conclusions:
- A straightforward written consent form outlining common risks is the most efficient method for informed consent before contrast material administration.
- This method balances patient understanding with resource allocation in radiology departments.
Abstract:
To determine the usefulness of informed consent prior to the intravascular administration of contrast material, the authors evaluated four equal groups of patients with different degrees of counseling concerning risks and risk factors. Group 1 was given no information. Group 2 was informed of the common risks in a written statement. Group 3 was informed of all known risks in a written statement. Group 4 was informed of all known risks by means of physician counseling. The average times it took for the technologist (groups 1-3) or the physician (group 4) to counsel the patient and obtain informed consent were 1.7, 6.2, 13.6, and 11.4 minutes, respectively. Counseling by physicians would require approximately 7% of their professional time in a busy radiology department. On a postprocedure test, the patients in groups 1-4 scored on average 38.4%, 68.2%, 63.2%, and 69.8%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in the performance of groups 2-4 on the postprocedure test. If informed consent is to be obtained prior to intravascular administration of contrast material, use of a straightforward written consent form detailing the common risks and risk factors appears to be the best method.