Advertisement

Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)

, Volume 184, Issue 2, pp 521–529 | Cite as

Content, accuracy and completeness of patient consent in a regional vascular surgery unit

  • D. McGrogan
  • D. Mark
  • B. Lee
  • M. E. O’DonnellEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

Although the General Medical Council has published guidelines for procedural consent, there is evidence to suggest that deficiencies still occur in completion demographics, documentation of procedural risks and information regarding alternative therapies. We assessed the accuracy and completeness of vascular consent within our unit.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing vascular intervention between February 2010 and 2011 was performed. Patient chart examination included the analysis of consenting doctors’ grade, responsible vascular consultant, completeness of procedural entry, documentation of correct side, use of abbreviations, discussion of benefits and complications, additional information and overall legibility.

Results

323 patient consent forms were reviewed (male 203, mean age 68.0 years, elective surgery 241) including 50 AAA repairs, 27 carotid endarterectomies, 88 peripheral arterial reconstructions, 96 amputations and 69 elective varicose vein surgeries. 294 (91 %) consent forms were completed by a specialist registrar or above with 286 (88.5 %) forms having the responsible consultant documented. 85.4 % of patients were consented within 48 h of surgery. 245 (75.9 %) consent forms had legible printed names. However, only 75 (23.2 %) had a legible signature. 306 (94.7 %) consent forms had the procedure documented in full but 165 (51.0 %) had used abbreviations. 103 (31.9 %) had documentation of the intended benefits of surgery whilst 293 (90.7 %) had documentation of potential complications. Three patients had documented evidence of receiving written information and one patient received a copy of the consent form. Of those surveyed, procedural mortality was discussed in 62.5 % of open and 47.3 % of endovascular AAA repairs. Stroke was documented in 96.3 % of consent forms for carotid endarterectomy. Scarring was included most commonly in patients undergoing venous procedures.

Conclusion

Vascular consent is a complex process involving a number of discussions and meetings with patients. Our unit has demonstrated compliance of nearly 90 % for all consent-related processes and remains consistent with current GMC guidance. However, further improvement including the documentation of intended benefits, provision of additional written information whilst reducing the use of abbreviations is desired.

Keywords

Consent Patient Surgery Vascular 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Ms. Bonnie Schimek from the Mayo Clinic who provided assistance with all the figures.

References

  1. 1.
    General Medical Council (2008) Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance_index.asp. Last accessed 12 May 2014
  2. 2.
    WHO-SEARO workshop (2007) Guidelines for medical record and clinical documentation. http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/2007_Guidelines_for_Clinical_Doc.pdf. Last accessed 15 May 2013
  3. 3.
    Crawford JR, Beresford TP, Lafferty KL (2001) The CRABEL score: a method for auditing medical records. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 83(1):65–68PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (2012). http://www.health.qld.gov.au/consent/html/sub_specialties/vascular.asp. Last accessed 12 May 2014
  5. 5.
    Black SA, Nestle D, Tierney T, Amygbalos I, Kneebone R, Wolfe JHN (2009) Gaining consent for carotid surgery: a simulation-based study of vascular surgeons. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 37(2):1334–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berman L, Curry L, Gusberg R, Dardik A, Fraenkel L (2008) Informed consent for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: the patient’s perspective. J Vasc Surg 48(2):296–302CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Houghton DJ, Williams S, Bennett JD, Back G, Jones AS (1997) Informed consent: patients’ and junior doctors’ perceptions of the consent procedure. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 22(6):515–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carter K, Roake JA, Buckenham T, Frampton CM, Lewis DR (2008) Informed consent for vascular intervention: completing one audit loop. NZ Med J 121(1269):57–63Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soin B, Smellie WA, Thomson HJ (1993) Informed consent: a case for more education of the surgical team. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 75(1):62–65PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Temple-Doig L, Gordon M, Buckenham T, Roake J, Lewis D (2005) Informed consent for vascular intervention. N Z Med J 118(1221):U1630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme. https://www.iscp.ac.uk/surgical/curr_intro.aspx. Last accessed 12 May 2014
  12. 12.
    Department of Health (UK) (2001) Good practice in consent implementation guide: consent to examination or treatment. London: Department of Health publications. Available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/Consent/ConsentGeneralInformation/fs/en. Last accessed 15 May 2013
  13. 13.
    Palfreyman SJ, Drewery-Carter K, Rigby K, Michaels JA, Tod AM (2004) Varicose veins: a qualitative study to explore expectations and reasons for seeking treatment. J Clin Nurs 13(3):332–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glenndinning E, Howard R (2007) Professional English in Use: Medicine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berman L, Dardik A, Bradley EH, Gusberg RJ, Fraenkel L (2008) Informed consent for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: assessing variations in surgeon opinion through a national survey. J Vasc Surg 47(2):287–295CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Campbell B (2004) New consent forms issued by the Department of Health. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 86(6):457–458CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Langdon IJ, Hardin R, Learmonth ID (2002) Informed consent for total hip arthroplasty: does a written information sheet improve recall by patients? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 84(6):404–408CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. McGrogan
    • 1
  • D. Mark
    • 1
  • B. Lee
    • 1
  • M. E. O’Donnell
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryRoyal Victoria HospitalBelfastNorthern Ireland
  2. 2.Sport and Exercise Sciences Research Institute, Faculty of Life and Health SciencesUniversity of UlsterJordanstownNorthern Ireland
  3. 3.Division of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryMayo ClinicPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations