Related Experiment Videos
Written consent is haphazard for minor urological procedures
D Hrouda1, M Emberton, S J Hampson
1Department of Urology, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
British Journal of Urology
|April 1, 1997
Summary
British urologists show inconsistent practices regarding written informed consent for minor procedures like flexible cystoscopy under local anaesthesia. A consensus is needed to establish clear national guidelines for patient consent.
Area of Science:
- Urology
- Medical Ethics
- Patient Safety
Background:
- Informed consent is a cornerstone of medical ethics and patient safety.
- Current practices for obtaining consent for minor urological procedures under local anaesthesia vary significantly.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the contemporary practices of British urologists in obtaining written informed consent.
- To assess consent procedures for common local anaesthetic urological interventions.
Main Methods:
- A national postal questionnaire survey was distributed to members of The British Association of Urological Surgeons.
- The survey queried the requirement for written informed consent for procedures such as flexible cystoscopy, urethral dilatation, and catheterization.
Main Results:
- There was considerable variation in the requirement for written consent for flexible cystoscopy and urethral dilatation.
- Most urologists did not obtain written consent for procedures including catheterization for retention, urodynamics, and intravesical chemotherapy.
Conclusions:
- Significant inconsistencies exist in urological consent practices for minor procedures.
- There is a clear need for a consensus among urologists to develop standardized national guidelines for informed consent.