Abstract
The desirability of obtaining written informed consent for low-risk radiologic procedures has been the subject of controversy. A group of 80 patients was studied to evaluate the effect of informed consent for excretory urograms on: (1) incidence of contrast reactions; (2) discomfort during the procedure; (3) level of patients’ anxiety before and after the procedure; (4) patients’ perception of the procedure; and (5) desirability of informed consent from the patients’ viewpoint.
Results revealed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the incidence of reactions, discomfort, perception of the examination, or anxiety level prior to the procedure. The informed consent group had a statistically greater factual knowledge of the procedure evaluated objectively (P < 0.01). Of the patients who received the written consent form, 83% regarded it as helpful and none viewed it as harmful or refused the examination. In the control group, 32% desired more information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Reuter SR: Use of detailed consent forms. American College of Radiology, 1983
James AE, Johnson BA, Hall DJ: Informed consent: some newer aspects and their relation to the specialty of radiology.Radiology 123:809–813, 1977
Johnson BA, James AE: The radiologist and informed consent: a review, comment and proposals.Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 8:3–19, 1979
Krause GP: Legal forum. A primer on informed consent.Radiol Management 4:12–15, 1982
Webber MM: Informed consent in research and practice.Radiology 144:939–941, 1982
Lalli AF: Urographic contrast media reactions and anxiety.Radiology 112:267–271, 1974
Alfidi RJ: Controversies, alternatives and decisions in complying with the legal doctrine of informed consent.Radiology 114:231–234, 1975
Patten BM, Stump W: Death related to informed consent.Texas Med 74:49–55, 1978
Brock D, Lawson RK, Bennett WM: Preoperative workshops with patient waiting for kidney transplant.Transplant Proc 5:1059–1063, 1973
Bergler JH, Pennington AC, Metcalfe M, Freis ED: Informed consent: how much does the patient understand.Clin Pharmacol Ther 27:435–440, 1980
Mahler DM, Veatch RM, Sidel VW: Ethical issues in informed consent.JAMA 247:481–485, 1982
Salgo vs Leland Stanford Board of Trustees: 317 P 2d 170, Calif 1957
Bang vs Charles T. Miller Hospital: 251 Minn 427, 88 NW 2d 186, 1958
Lankston JW, Batchelder BM, Ominsky AJ: Emotional response to detailed risk disclosure for anaesthesia: a prospective randomized study.Anesthesiology 46:294–296, 1977
Witten DM, Hirsch FD, Hartman GW: Acute reactions to urographic contrast medium. Incidence, clinical characteristics, and relationships to history of hypersensitivity status.Am J Roentgenol 119:832–840, 1973
Shehadi WH, Toniolo G: Report of committee of safety of contrast media of the International Society of Radiology.Radiology 137:299–302, 1980
Spring DB, Akin JR, Margulis AR: Informed consent for intravenous contrast-enhanced radiography: a national survey of practice and opinion.Radiology 152:609–613, 1984
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Winfield, A.C., Ford, C.V., James, A.E. et al. Response of patients to informed consent for excretory urography. Urol Radiol 8, 35–38 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02924069
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02924069