Abstract
Purpose
Informed consent is vital in surgery. The General Medical Council, UK and Royal College of Surgeons of England provide clear guidance on what constitutes the process of informed patient consent. Despite this, evidence suggests that the consent process may not be performed well in surgery. We utilised a staged patient-centred approach and rigorous methodology to develop a standardised patient information leaflet (PIL) and pre-written structured consent form for complex abdominal wall reconstruction (CAWR).
Methods
We utilised the principles of Deming’s Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to approach the process. Buzan’s mind maps were used to identify the stakeholders and deficiencies in the consent process (‘Plan’ phase). The content of the PIL and pre-written consent form was then developed in collaboration with stakeholders (‘Do’ phase). Multidisciplinary and multidepartmental feedback was obtained on the proposed content and amendments were made (‘Study’ and ‘Act’ phases).
Results
We successfully produced a clear, focused PIL and structured consent form, in Plain English, presenting accurate, relevant and detailed information in a highly understandable way. The PIL had a Flesch Reading Ease score of > 80, demonstrating a high level of readability and comprehensibility, with positive implications for informed patient decision making and preparedness for surgery.
Conclusion
Through sharing the process that we undertook, we aim to support other abdominal wall units who wish to develop and improve their own consent process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
General Medical Council (2018) Consent: Patients and doctors making decisions together. General Medical Council. https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/consent. Accessed 11 Apr 2020
Selinger CP (2009) The right to consent: Is it absolute? BJMP 2:50–54
The Royal College of Surgeons of England (2016) Surgeons warn NHS failing to implement patient consent rules, risks facing increase in litigation pay-outs. The Royal College of Surgeons of England. https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/news-and-events/media-centre/press-releases/surgeons-warn-nhs-failing-to-implement-patient-consent-rules/. Accessed 03 Apr 2020
Chan SW, Tulloch E, Cooper ES et al (2017) Montgomery and informed consent: Where are we now? BMJ 12:1–3
The Royal College of Surgeons of England (2020) 3.5.1 Consent. The Royal College of Surgeons of England. https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/standards-and-research/gsp/domain-3/3-5-1-consent/. Accessed 09 Apr 2020
Rowlands G, Protheroe J, Price H et al (2014) Health literacy: report from an RCGP-led health literacy workshop. Royal College of General Practitioners, London
Bajada S, Dwamena S, Abdul Z et al (2017) Improving consent form documentation and introduction of procedure-specific labels in a district general hospital. BMJ 6:1–5
Sherlock A, Brownie S (2014) Patients’ recollection and understanding of informed consent: a literature review. ANZ J Surg 84(4):207–210
Ritchie R, Reynard J (2008) Consent for surgery: time for a standardized NHS consent checklist. JR Soc Med 101:48–49
Walters AL, Dacey KT, Zemlyak AY et al (2013) Medical malpractice and hernia repair: an analysis of case law. J Surg Res 180(2):196–200
Bandar Z, Hu L, Asad BA et al (2019) Review of malpractice in hernia surgery: damage to surrounding structures remains the most common reason for litigation, SAGES conference abstract. Available here: https://eventpilotadmin.com/web/page.php?page=IntHtml&project=SAGES19&id=95667. Accessed 3 July 2020
Nosti PA, Iglesia CB (2013) Medicolegal issues surrounding devices and mesh for surgical treatment of prolapse and incontinence. Clin Obstet Gynecol 56(2):221–228
Bittner R (2019) Medico-legal implications in hernia surgery. Int J Abdominal Wall Hernia Surg 2(3):105–113
Taylor MJ, McNichola C, Nicolay C et al (2016) Systematic review of the application of the Plan-Do-Study-Act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ 23:290–298
Buzan T (1995) The mind map book. BBC Books, London
Gleeson H, Calderon A, Swami V et al (2016) Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings. BMJ 6:1–11
Blenkinsop S (1997) Whatever happened to plain english? The gobbledygook smokescreen that baffles research subjects. In: Close E, Combes R, Hubbard A, Illingworth J (eds) In: Volunteers in research and testing. Taylor and Francis, Bristol
EIDO Healthcare (2020) EIDO Healthcare. https://www.eidohealthcare.com/. Accessed 3 July 2020
Department of Health. Managing the costs of clinical negligence in trusts. Report for the National Audit Office, 7 September 2017. https://www.nao.org.uk/report/managing-the-costs-of-clinical-negligence-in-trusts/. Accessed 3 July 2020
Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) United Kingdom Supreme Court, case 11. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2020
NHS England and NHS Improvement (2020) Plain English guide to personalised health and care. NHS England and NHS Improvement. https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/plain-english-guide-to-personalised-health-and-care/. Accessed 12th Apr 2020
World Health Organisation (2020) Principles of effective communication: Understandable. World Health Organisation. https://www.who.int/about/communications/understandable/plain-language. Accessed 12th Apr 2020
WebFX (2020) Readability test tool. WebFx. https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/flesch-kincaid.html Accessed 01 April 2020
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support of all the general surgeons at York and Scarborough, as well as the Medical Illustration Team at York. We would also like to acknowledge and thank the support and input of our patients, to whom our work is dedicated.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by OS, PC, TM, PL and SC. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MA and all authors commented on the previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors (Mariam Asarbakhsh, Olivia Smith, Praminthra Chitsabesan, Tom MacLeod, Philip Lim and Srinivas Chintapatla) declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Human and animal rights
No Human and animal rights issues were invovled in the production of this manuscript.
Informed consent
Informed consent is not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Asarbakhsh, M., Smith, O., Chitsabesan, P. et al. A multistage process leading to the development of a structured consent form and patient information leaflet for complex abdominal wall reconstruction (CAWR). Hernia 25, 277–285 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02260-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02260-0