Reevaluating Informed Consent: Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Spinal Surgery for Better Patient Outcomes

Area of Science:

• Neurosurgery
• Orthopaedic Surgery
• Medical Ethics

Background:

• Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical medical practice, particularly in high-risk surgical fields.
• Shared decision-making (SDM) ensures patients actively participate in their treatment choices based on open communication.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the quality of informed consent in spine surgery (neurosurgery and orthopaedic).
• To identify limitations to effective SDM and informed consent in spine surgery.
• To explore strategies for improving informed consent and SDM, and reducing litigation.

Main Methods:

• This study employed a narrative review methodology.
• No specific patient data or surgical procedures were analyzed.

Main Results:

• Effective SDM and informed consent are vital for patient empowerment and optimal outcomes.
• Enhancing risk communication and patient autonomy improves physician-patient relationships.
• High rates of litigation in spine surgery are often linked to inadequate informed consent.

Conclusions:

• Improving informed consent and SDM processes can significantly reduce litigation in orthopaedic and neurosurgery.
• These improvements lead to increased patient satisfaction and better clinical outcomes.
• Addressing challenges in SDM is key to mitigating legal disputes and enhancing patient care.