Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A prospective audit on the validity of written informed consent prior to glaucoma surgery: an Asian perspective

  • Glaucoma
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the validity of written informed consent taken from patients prior to undergoing glaucoma surgery by testing their ability to understand the information offered to them during the consent-taking process.

Methods

Seventy-three patients were asked to complete a standardised confidential questionnaire after giving a written informed consent. Surgeons who were taking the consent were also requested to submit their self-evaluation form. Patients’ understanding of the information they were given was evaluated using a standardised point scoring system.

Results

Fifty patients (68.5%) agreed that they were given enough time to make an informed decision, while 67 doctors (91.8%) claimed that they had allocated enough time to explain the procedures. Fifty-two patients (71.2%) reported that they were given adequate information on the details or diagnosis of their problems, 65 patients (89.0%) on the details of the procedure and 69 patients (94.5%) on the risks and complications. Thirty-four patients (46.6%) were not sure, or refused information on the risks and complications of the procedure. Only half of the patients (57.5%) had overall moderate understanding of their surgical problem, and only 13 patients (17.8%) were able to demonstrate a good overall understanding of their surgical problem.

Conclusions

Although most patients acknowledged that they received sufficient information to give consent, few could objectively recall the information given to them. This study thus raises some doubts on the validity and quality of written informed consent, and highlights the importance of giving clear information to patients undergoing glaucoma surgery.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Department of Health, U.K (2001) Good practice in consent implementation guide: consent to examination or treatment

  2. Yoshida A (1998) The importance of informed consent in the field of ophthalmology. Hokkaido Igaku Zasshi 73:15–20

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mavroforou A, Michalodimitrakis E (2003) Physicians’ liability in ophthalmology practice. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 81:321–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gann R (1995) (1995) The therapeutic partnership: legal and ethical aspects of consumer health information. Health Libr Rev 12:83–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Buskirk EM (1998) Medicolegal aspects of glaucoma care. Surv Ophthalmol 43:83–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Muhammad FA, Masood J, Shafiq-ur-Rehman M, Hina BZ, Saad BZ (2006) An audit of information provided during preoperative informed consent. Pak J Med Sci 22:10–13

    Google Scholar 

  7. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC (2001) Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:139–147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Jackson JC, Hewison J, Thornton J (1998) Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 2:1–132

    Google Scholar 

  10. Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14:1085–1096

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Slovic P, Peters E (2006) Risk perception and affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 15:322–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Dec Making 13:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dietlein TS, Jordan J, Dinslage S, Krieglstein GK (2006) What do glaucoma specialists know about their patients? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 244:859–862

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tielsch JM, Steinberg EP, Cassard SD, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Bass EB, Sharkey P (1995) Preoperative functional expectations and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing first eye cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 113:1312–1318

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Quill TE, Brody H (1996) Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med 125:763–769

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaba R, Sooriakumaran P (2007) The evolution of the doctor–patient relationship. Int J Surg 5:57–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Katz J (1998) Reflections on informed consent: 40 years after its birth. J Am Coll Surg 186:466–474

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McKneally MF, Ignaqni E, Martin DK, D’Cruz J (2004) The leap to trust: perspective of cholecystectomy patients on informed decision making and consent. J Am Coll Surg 199:51–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Squier RW (1990) A model of empathic understanding and adherence to treatment regimens in practitioner-paitnet relationships. Soc Sci Med 30:325–339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dawn AG, Santiago-Turla C, Lee PP (2003) Patient expectations regarding eye care: focus group results. Arch Ophthalmol 121:762–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hekkenberg RJ, Irish JC, Rotstein LE, Brown DH, Gullane PJ (1997) Informed consent in head and neck surgery: how much do patients actually remember? J Otolaryngol 26:155–159

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hutson MM, Blaha JD (1991) Patients' recall of preoperative instruction for informed consent for an operation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:160–162

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kay R, Siriwardena AK (2001) The process of informed consent for urgent abdominal surgery. J Med Ethics 27:157–161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Oxford Eye Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK

    Kui Dong Kang

  2. Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

    Aman Shah B. Abdul Majid

  3. Department of Physiology, Gachon University of Medicine and Science, Incheon, Korea

    Jee Hyun Kwag

  4. HanGil Eye Hospital, Incheon, Korea

    Yeon Deok Kim

  5. Department of Ophthalmology, Our Lady of Mercy Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Korea

    Hye Bin Yim

  6. Oxford Eye Hospital, West Wing, The John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK

    Kui Dong Kang

Authors
  1. Kui Dong Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aman Shah B. Abdul Majid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jee Hyun Kwag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yeon Deok Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hye Bin Yim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kui Dong Kang.

Additional information

The authors have no proprietary interest in any material used in this study.

The authors have full control of all primary data, and agree to allow Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology to review their data upon request.

Kui Dong Kang, Aman Shah B. Abdul Majid and Jee Hyun Kwag contributed equally to this work.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Questionnaire of Good Practice in Consent

Health Professional Form

figure a

Appendix 2

Consent Form

Patient Agreement to investigate or treatment

figure bfigure b

Appendix 3

Questionnaire of Good Practice in Consent

Patient Form

figure cfigure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kang, K.D., Abdul Majid, A.S.B., Kwag, J.H. et al. A prospective audit on the validity of written informed consent prior to glaucoma surgery: an Asian perspective. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248, 687–701 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1209-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1209-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation