How many facts make an “informed patient”? Practical challenges for junior doctors in acquiring surgical informed consent
Josephine de Costa, Alan De Costa, Mandy Shircore
ANZ Journal of Surgery, 6 February 2020; 89 (S1) pp 106-1063
Abstract
Purpose
In addition to technical surgical skills, the complete surgeon requires skills in communication and consenting patients. This protects patients, hospitals, and doctors themselves, but also promotes best practice. However, surgical informed consent (SIC) is commonly acquired by junior doctors (defined as PGY1 until completion of specialist training). Little is known about the quality of SIC that doctors at this level may acquire. This study aimed to synthesize known evidence on challenges faced by junior doctors on this issue.
Methodology
The authors conducted a systematic review of all English-language studies published from 1 January 2007 looking at junior doctors (considered to be from PGY1 to the end of specialist training) and any issues that arose around acquiring SIC. A qualitative synthesis was then conducted.
Results
Junior doctors understanding of the legal standards of consent, including both capacity/competence and the concepts of material risk, varied considerably across studies. Documentation and discussion of possible complications in surgery was found to be highly variable within both trainees and consultants consenting practices. Few junior doctors discussed alternative treatment options, including the possibility of having no treatment; evidence on discussion of benefits and recovery were conflicting. Overall documentation of the SIC process was poor.
Conclusions
While junior doctors are commonly responsible for acquiring SIC, this study shows that there are significant practical deficiencies in how they discharge this duty. As a result, SIC acquired by junior doctors may not always comply with required legal standards, which may open up this cohort, and their hospitals, to legal action.

Montgomery in, Bolam out: are trainee surgeons ‘material risks’ when taking consent for cataract surgery?
Review Article
Omar Qadir, Yusuf Abdallah, Helen Mulholland, Imran Masood, Stephen A. Vernon, Simon N. Madge
Eye, 4 February 2020
Abstract
Trainee involvement in cataract surgery is vital to allow proper training of the next generation of ophthalmic surgeons. However, recent changes in the UK Law, coupled with open publication of National Cataract Dataset results, lead us to conclude that the status of being a trainee is itself a material risk that now needs to be divulged to patients during the consent process. The opinions of current trainee surgeons in the UK were sampled via questionnaire and clinical negligence counsel was involved in the authorship of the paper in order to analyse the legal issues at stake. Attitudes towards consent regarding trainee involvement in UK cataract surgery need to change.

Informed consent for invasive procedures in the emergency department
Max M. Feinstein, Janet Adegboye, Joshua D. Niforatos, Richard M. Pescatore
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 28 January 2020
Abstract
Background
Informed consent for procedures in the emergency department (ED) challenges practitioners to navigate complex ethical and medical ambiguities. A patient’s altered mental status or emergent medical problem does not negate the importance of his or her participation in the decision-making process but, rather, necessitates a nuanced assessment of the situation to determine the appropriate level of participation. Given the complexities involved with informed consent for procedures in the ED, it is important to understand the experience of key stakeholders involved.
Methods
For this review, we searched Medline, the Cochrane database, and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies involving informed consent in the ED. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were designed to select for studies that included issues related to informed consent as primary outcomes. The following data was extracted from included studies: Title, authors, date of publication, study type, participant type (i.e. adult patient, pediatric patient, parent of pediatric patient, patient’s family, or healthcare provider), number of participants, and primary outcomes measured.
Results
Fifteen articles were included for final review. Commonly addressed themes included medical education (7 of 15 studies), surrogate decision-making (5 of 15 studies), and patient understanding (4 of 15 studies). The least common theme addressed in the literature was community notification (1 of 15 studies).
Conclusions
Studies of informed consent for procedures in the ED span many aspects of informed consent. The aim of the present narrative review is to summarize the work that has been done on informed consent for procedures in the ED.

Infringement of the right to surgical informed consent: negligent disclosure and its impact on patient trust in surgeons at public general hospitals – the voice of the patient
Gillie Gabay, Yaarit Bokek-Cohen
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2019; 20(1)
Abstract
Background
There is little dispute that the ideal moral standard for surgical informed consent calls for surgeons to carry out a disclosure dialogue with patients before they sign the informed consent form. This narrative study is the first to link patient experiences regarding the disclosure dialogue with patient-surgeon trust, central to effective recuperation and higher adherence.
Methods
Informants were 12 Israelis (6 men and 6 women), aged 29-81, who underwent life-saving surgeries. A snowball sampling was used to locate participants in their initial recovery process upon discharge.
Results
Our empirical evidence indicates an infringement of patients’ right to receive an adequate disclosure dialogue that respects their autonomy. More than half of the participants signed the informed consent form with no disclosure dialogue, and thus felt anxious, deceived and lost their trust in surgeons. Surgeons nullified the meaning of informed consent rather than promoted participants’ moral agency and dignity.
Discussion
Similarity among jarring experiences of participants led us to contend that the conduct of nullifying surgical informed consent does not stem solely from constraints of time and resources, but may reflect an underlying paradox preserving this conduct and leading to objectification of patients and persisting in paternalism. We propose a multi-phase data-driven model for informed consent that attends to patients needs and facilitates patient trust in surgeons.
Conclusions
Patient experiences attest to the infringement of a patient’s right to respect for autonomy. In order to meet the prima facie right of respect for autonomy, moral agency and dignity, physicians ought to respect patient’s needs. It is now time to renew efforts to avoid negligent disclosure and implement a patient-centered model of informed consent.

Consent for Emergency Treatment: Emergency Department Patient Recall and Understanding
Ashley LaFountain
Wright State Univseriity CORE Scholar, Scholarship in Medicine Papers, 2019
Abstract
Informed consent is an important ethical and legal requirement that underlies the concept of patient autonomy. This prospective survey study was conducted to assess patient recall and understanding of consent for treatment in adult emergency department (ED) patients at an urban level 1 trauma center with annual volume of 95,000, Miami Valley Hospital. Out of a total 293 patients, most individuals reported only receiving a verbal explanation of the consent document (45%) or not reading the document at all (36%). About half of the patients recalled consenting to treatment (N=144, 49%) and over one third of patients could not recall anything that they consented to during the consent process. These results demonstrate poor understanding of the informed consent document.