Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Surgical Informed Consent Process: Myth or Reality?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surgical Ethics

  • 811 Accesses

Abstract

Informed consent is currently considered to be a highly important factor which is becoming a critical component of surgical practice. It is a complex process and not just an event or a single encounter. In the twenty-first century, it is accepted that the traditional paternalist relationship between the patient and physician has been replaced by a new type of relationship in which the patient detents a very active and crucial role. For patients who need a surgical procedure, the informed consent process represents the honing of this link between the surgeon and his or her patient. The legal principle emphasizes the fact that the patient is an independent adult who has the capacity to authorize what is going to be done to his or her body. This is a process with significant ethical and legal aspects where both the surgeon and the patient play a major role.

The components which make up the informed consent process are the preconditions, the information provided to the patient, and the consent itself. The most complex step of the informed consent process for the surgeon is providing correct, truthful, unbiased, and accurate information to the patient while keeping hope in him or her. The physician disclosure has three stages: the disclosure of information, the patient understanding, and the patient decision-making. It is necessary to adapt the information to each patient in a language they can always understand. The physician must provide information about the surgical procedure, the benefits, the associated risks, potential complications, and alternative procedures, if any.

Surgeons must use all the available tools to adequately inform the patient and the relatives and improve his or her understanding: information leaflets, multimedia interventions, decision aids, the Internet, and government and professional organization guidelines. New tools as surgical risk calculators which estimate patient-specific postoperative complications for different procedures are now available.

The ultimate goal of the informed consent process should be fostering the patient’s trust in his or her surgeon.

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 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
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

References

  1. Hanson M, Pitt D. Informed consent for surgery: risk discussion and documentation. Can J Surg. 2017;60:69–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Wheeler R. The evolution of informed consent. BJS. 2017;104:1119–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Grant SB, Modi PK, Singer EA. The surgical informed consent process. In: Ferreres AR, Angelos P, Singer EA, editors. Ethical issues in surgical care, vol. 2017. Chicago: American College of Surgeons Division of Education; 2017. p. 137–63.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Caínzos M, González-Vinagre S. Informed consent in surgery. World J Surg. 2014;38:1587–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Canadian Medical Protective Association. Risk Fact Sheet CMPA. Available: www.cmpa-acpm.ca/documents/10179/300031190/informed_consent-e.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2016.

  6. N.E. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital 1914, 211 N.Y. 125 (106 N.E. 93) (N.Y. 1914).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Mohr v Williams, 1905 (104 N.W. 12 Supreme Court of Minnesota).

    Google Scholar 

  8. WLR Bolam vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957 (1 WLR 583).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 1957 (317 P.2d 170).

    Google Scholar 

  10. F. Canterbury vs. Spence, 1972 (464 F.2d 772 (d.c. 1972)).

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. Truman v. Thomas, 1980 (611 P.2d 902 (Cal 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 499 US 936 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Skene L, Smalwood R. Informed consent: lessons from Australia. BMJ. 2002;324(7328):39–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Arato v. Avedon, 858 Pad 598 (Cal 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Duttry v. Paterson, 771 A2d 1255 (Pa 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (Scotland), (2015); UKCS 11.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ley 41/2002 de Noviembre, básica reguladora de la autonomía del paciente y de derechos y obligaciones en materia de información y documentación clínica. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 15 de Noviembre de 2002. Págs. 40126–32.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Weaver JP. A problem with informed consent. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:286–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Acea B. Informed consent in the surgical patient. Reflections on the basic law of patient autonomy. Cir Esp. 2005;77:321–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Leclercq WKG, Keulers BJ, Scheltinga MRM, et al. A review of surgical informed consent: past, present, and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions. World J Surg. 2010;34:1406–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Char SJL, Lo B, Kirkwood KS. How important is disclosing surgeon experience when obtaining informed consent? J Am CollSurg. 2011;213(3S):S112–3.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Heneghan K, Walter KR. Legislative activities and informed consent. Bulletin American College of Surgeons. 2016;101:61–5.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. State Operations Manual. Appendix A – Survey protocol, regulations and interpretive guidelines for hospitals. Rev. 151. Nov 20, 2015. 482.51 (b). www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/som107ap_a_hospitals.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2016.

  25. The Joint Commission 2009 Requirements Related to the Provision of Culturally Care Hospital Accreditation Program (HAP). Hospital Accreditation Standards. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: The Joint Commission. 2009. Standard RI.01.03.01. www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/2009_CLASRelatedStandardsHAP.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2016.

  26. Skowron KB, Angelos P. Surgical informed consent revisited: time to revise the routine? World J Surg. 2017;41:1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Angelos P. The evolution of informed consent for surgery using the best case/worst case framework. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:538–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kruser JM, Nabozny MJ, Steffens NM, et al. “Best case/worst case”: qualitative evolution of a novel communication tool for difficult in-the-moment surgical decision. J Am Geriat Soc. 2015;63:1805–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Taylor LJ, Nabozny MJ, Steffens NM, et al. A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions: best case/worst case. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Largerman A. Concurrent surgery and informed consent. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:601–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Keulers BJ, Scheltinga MRM, Houtermann S, et al. Surgeons underestimated their patients’ desire for preoperative information. World J Surg. 2008;32:964–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Rastogi P. Through the looking glass – understanding informed consent. Clinical Ethics. 2015;10:41–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Scheer AS, O’Connor AM, Chan BPK, et al. The myth of informed consent in rectal cancer surgery: what do patients retain? Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:970–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Solomon MJ, Pager CK, Keshava A, et al. What do patients want? Patient preferences and surrogate decision-making in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1351–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Masya LM, Young JM, Solomon MJ, et al. Preferences for outcomes of treatment for rectal cancer: patient and clinician utilities and their application in an interactive computer-based decision aid. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1994–2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fink AS, Prochazka AV, Herderson WG, et al. Predictor of comprehension during surgical informed consent. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:919–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ruíz Lopez R. Informed consent in surgery. Distance between theory and practice. Cir Esp. 2013;91:551–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Braddock C 3rd, Hudal PL, Feldmann JJ, et al. Surgery is certainly one good option: quality and time-efficiency of informed decision-making in surgery. J Bone Joint Am. 2008;90:1830–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mulsow JJW, Feeley M, Tierney S. Review. Beyond consent – improving understanding in surgical patients. Am J Surg. 2012;203:112–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tamhankar AP, Mazari F, Everitt NJ, Ravi K. Use of the internet by patients undergoing elective hernia repair or cholecystectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91:460–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285:2612–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Murphy JO, Sweeney KL, O’Mahony JC, et al. Surgical informatics in internet: any improvement? Surgeon. 2003;1:177–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Murphy MA, Joyce WP. Information for surgical patients: implications of the world wide web. Eur J Surg. 2001;167:728–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Evans R, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Making interactive decision support for patients a reality. Inform Prim Care. 2004;12:109–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Department of Health. Good practice in consent implementation guide: consent to examination or treatment. London: Department of Health; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Atrey A, Leslie I, Carvell J, et al. Standardised consent forms on the website of the British Orthopaedic Association. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:422–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Fink AS, Prochazka AV, Henderson WG, et al. Enhancement of surgical informed consent by addition of repeat back: a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252:27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. American College of Surgeons. www.facs.org. Public information from the American College of Surgeons, 2013.

  49. Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL, et al. Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:833–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Liu Y, Cohen ME, Hall BI, et al. Evaluation and enhancement of calibration in the American College of Surgeons NSQIP surgical risk calculator. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223:231–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Cohen ME, Liu Y, Ko CY, Hall BL. An examination of American College of Surgeons NSQIP surgical risk calculator accuracy. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224:787–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kraemer K, Cohen ME, Liu Y, et al. Development and evaluation of the American College of Surgeons NSQIP pediatric surgical risk calculator. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223:685–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lubitz AL, Chan E, Zarif D, et al. American College of Surgeons NSQIP risk calculator accuracy for emergent and elective colorectal operations. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225:601–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kole J, Fiester A. Incidental findings and the need for a revised informed consent process. AJR. 2013;201:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Consent to treatment. Dialogue. 2015;11:50.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Purcaru D, Preda A, Popa D, et al. Informed consent: how much awareness is there? PLOS ONE. www.plosone.org. 2014;9:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kim EK, Kim S. Simplification improves understanding of informed consent information in clinical trials regardless of health literacy level. Clin Trials. 2015;12:232–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Halloch JL, Rios R, Handa RL. Patient satisfaction and informed consent for surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:181.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Grady C, Cummings SR, Rowbotham MC, et al. Informed consent. N Engl J Med. 2017;369:856–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Goh HG, Shin SW. Informed consent. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:e41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Angelos P, Darosa DA, Bentram D, et al. Residents seeking informed consent: are they adequately knowledgeable? Curr Surg. 2002;59:115–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. McKneally MF, Martin DK, Ignani E, D’Cruz J. Responding the trust: surgeons’ perspective on informed consent. World J Surg. 2009;33:1341–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Jamjoom AAB, White S, Walton SM, et al. Anaesthetists’ and surgeons’ attitudes towards informed consent in the UK: an observational study. BMC Med Ethics. 2010;11:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland Consent for anaesthesia. Revised ed. London: AAGBI; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Benjamin DM. Reducing medication errors and increasing patient safety: case studies in clinical pharmacology. J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;43:768–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Baum N. Informed consent – more than a form. J Med Pract Manag. 2006;22:145–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Miguel A. Caínzos & Salustiano Gonzalez-Vinagre

Authors
  1. Miguel A. Caínzos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Salustiano Gonzalez-Vinagre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel A. Caínzos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Alberto R. Ferreres

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Caínzos, M.A., Gonzalez-Vinagre, S. (2019). The Surgical Informed Consent Process: Myth or Reality?. In: Ferreres, A. (eds) Surgical Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05963-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05964-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation