Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Consent and Patient Perception of Complications

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complications of Female Incontinence and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

  • 917 Accesses

Abstract

Informed consent refers to the process by which the physician and patient agree to a plan formulated concerning the patient’s care. Medicolegal cases throughout the twentieth century provide the framework for the discussion of informed consent. Informed consent is comprised of both the physician informing and disclosing information to the patient and also the patient consenting to the formulated plan of care. In female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, patients derive information about procedures not only from their clinicians but also from other sources. Recent litigation regarding mesh complications enforces the need for physicians to thoroughly and clearly communicate with patients about their treatment choices so they can make an informed decision regarding their treatment plan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hippocrates Z. Decorum. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Katz J. Reflections on informed consent: 40 years after its birth. J Am Coll Surg. 1998;186(4):466–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eddy DM. Practice policies: where do they come from? JAMA 1990;263(9):1265, 9, 72 passim.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2420–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dolgin JL. The legal development of the informed consent doctrine: past and present. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2010;19(1):97–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schloendorff v. The Society of New York Hospital; 1914.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees; 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Childers R, Lipsett PA, Pawlik TM. Informed consent and the surgeon. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(4):627–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Miller D, Milani AL, Sutherland SE, Navin B, Rogers RG. Informed surgical consent for a mesh/graft-augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Consensus of the 2nd IUGA grafts roundtable: optimizing safety and appropriateness of graft use in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(Suppl 1):S33–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schenker Y, Meisel A. Informed consent in clinical care: practical considerations in the effort to achieve ethical goals. JAMA. 2011;305(11):1130–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Will JF. A brief historical and theoretical perspective on patient autonomy and medical decision making: part I: the beneficence model. Chest. 2011;139(3):669–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Will JF. A brief historical and theoretical perspective on patient autonomy and medical decision making: part II: the autonomy model. Chest. 2011;139(6):1491–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stain SC. Informed surgical consent. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(4):717–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hickson GB, Clayton EW, Githens PB, Sloan FA. Factors that prompted families to file medical malpractice claims following perinatal injuries. JAMA. 1992;267(10):1359–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, Frankel RM. The doctor–patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(12):1365–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Dauphinee D, Wenghofer E, Jacques A, Klass D, et al. Physician scores on a national clinical skills examination as predictors of complaints to medical regulatory authorities. JAMA. 2007;298(9):993–1001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Langewitz W, Denz M, Keller A, Kiss A, Ruttimann S, Wossmer B. Spontaneous talking time at start of consultation in outpatient clinic: cohort study. BMJ. 2002;325(7366):682–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rhoades DR, McFarland KF, Finch WH, Johnson AO. Speaking and interruptions during primary care office visits. Fam Med. 2001;33(7):528–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hojat M, Louis DZ, Markham FW, Wender R, Rabinowitz C, Gonnella JS. Physicians’ empathy and clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. Acad Med. 2011;86(3):359–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Street Jr RL, Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RM. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):295–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Neuwirth ZE. Physician empathy—should we care? Lancet. 1997;350(9078):606.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim SS, Kaplowitz S, Johnston MV. The effects of physician empathy on patient satisfaction and compliance. Eval Health Prof. 2004;27(3):237–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kinnersley P, Phillips K, Savage K, Kelly MJ, Farrell E, Morgan B, et al. Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD009445.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tenggardjaja CF, Moore CK, Vasavada SP, Li J, Goldman HB. Evaluation of patients’ perceptions of mesh usage in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Urology. 2015;85(2):326–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Koski ME, Chamberlain J, Rosoff J, Vaughan T, Kaufman MR, Winters JC, et al. Patient perception of transvaginal mesh and the media. Urology. 2014;84(3):575–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Anger JT, Lee UJ, Mittal BM, Pollard ME, Tarnay CM, Maliski S, et al. Health literacy and disease understanding among aging women with pelvic floor disorders. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(6):340–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Frequently asked questions by providers mid-urethral slings for stress urinary incontinence. In: AUGS/SUFU, editor. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schenker Y, Fernandez A, Sudore R, Schillinger D. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: a systematic review. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(1):151–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G, Miller S, Abdehou DM. The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Fam Pract. 1990;31(5):533–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Reagan KM, O’Sullivan DM, Harvey DP, Lasala CA. Readability of patient information pamphlets in urogynecology. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(2):63–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Easton P, Entwistle VA, Williams B. Health in the ‘hidden population’ of people with low literacy. A systematic review of the literature. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:459.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery/Voiding Dysfunction, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, 4900 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, 90027, USA

    Christopher F. Tenggardjaja M.D.

Authors
  1. Christopher F. Tenggardjaja M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher F. Tenggardjaja M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Glickman Urology & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Howard B. Goldman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tenggardjaja, C.F. (2017). Patient Consent and Patient Perception of Complications. In: Goldman, H. (eds) Complications of Female Incontinence and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49855-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49855-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49854-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49855-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation