Skip to main content
Log in

How informed is consent in a modern ENT department

  • Miscellaneous
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Department of Health issued a model consent form for use throughout the NHS from the 1st April 2002. Details of benefits and serious or frequent risks should be included on the form. We undertook a study to identify what proportion of complications from otolaryngology procedures were being recorded. Local morbidity and mortality records and case notes were examined from March to November 2004. Complications were identified and recorded. The consent forms for these operations were examined to identify if these complications had been recorded on the form prior to surgery. Complications were classified as “serious”, causing significant morbidity or increasing length of hospital stay or “frequent”, occurring in 1% or more of cases. A total of 2,978 operations were performed between March and November 2004. Seventy complications were identified in 60 patients (2% of operated patients). Twenty-three complications were not recorded on the consent forms in 20 (33%) patients. A total of 67% of all the complications were documented on the form as potential problems resulting from planned operations. Seven (74%) of complications that occurred but were not recorded on the consent forms were judged as “serious” or “frequent”. A significant proportion of serious or frequent complications are not being documented on the national consent forms before otolaryngological procedures and may not have been discussed. This may reflect a lack of openness during the consent process. In the current medical climate, this has serious ethical and medico-legal ramifications. It may also reflect a problem with the form and a need for a re-think of its design.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 2 All ER 118

  2. Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital (1985) AC 871

  3. GMC Guidance—reference guide to consent for examination or treatment, March 2001, Paragraph 5.1

  4. Dawes PJD (1994) Informed consent: questionnaire survey of British Otolaryngologists. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 19(5):388–393

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. GMC Guidance—reference guide to consent for examination or treatment, March 2001, Paragraph 9

  6. Dawes PJD, Kitcher E (1999) Informed consent: British Otolaryngologists surveyed. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 24(3):198–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Department of Health (2001) Good practice in consent implementation guide: consent to examination or treatment. Department of Health, London

  8. Canterbury v. Spence (1972) F (2nd) USA Court of Appeals, 772–791

  9. Kerrigan DD, Thevasagayam RS, Woods TO, McWelch I, Thomas WE, Shorthouse AJ, Dennison AR (1993) Who’s afraid of informed consent? BMJ 306(6873):298–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. GMC Guidance—reference guide to consent for examination or treatment, March 2001, Paragraph 5.5

  11. Dawes PJD (1999) Early complications of surgery for chronic otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 113(9):803–810

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Saravanappa N, Balfour A, Bowdler D (2003) Informed consent for middle ear operations: a United Kingdom survey. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 28(2):91–99

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. W. A. Goodyear.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goodyear, P.W.A., Anderson, A.R. & Kelly, G. How informed is consent in a modern ENT department. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 265, 957–961 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0638-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0638-4

Keywords

Navigation