Patient and Clinician Perceptions of Informed Consent and Decision Making About Accepting KDPI > 85 Kidneys
Karolina Schantz, Elisa J. Gordon, Unsun Lee, Maria Rocha, John Friedewald, Daniela P. Ladner, Yolanda Becker, Richard Formica, Peter P. Reese, Dixon Kaufman, Masoud Barah, Marissa Walker, Om Mehrotra, Dania Viveros, Sanjay Mehrotra
Transplantation Direct, January 2022; 8(1) pp e1254
Abstract
Background
Although the impact of the kidney donor profile index (KDPI) on kidney discard is well researched, less is known about how patients make decisions about whether to give consent for KDPI > 85 kidney offers.
Methods
We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 16 transplant recipients, 15 transplant candidates, and 23 clinicians (transplant surgeons, nephrologists, and nurse coordinators) to assess and compare perceptions of transplant education, informed consent for KDPI > 85 kidneys‚ and the decision-making process for accepting kidney offers. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data.
Results
Four themes emerged: (1) patients reported uncertainty about the meaning of KDPI or could not recall information about KDPI; (2) patients reported uncertainty about their KDPI > 85 consent status and a limited role in KDPI > 85 consent decision making; (3) patients’ reported willingness to consider KDPI > 85 kidneys depended on their age, health status, and experiences with dialysis, and thus it changed over time; (4) patients’ underestimated the survival benefit of transplantation compared with dialysis, which could affect their KDPI > 85 consent decision making.
Conclusions
To better support patients’ informed decision making about accepting KDPI > 85 kidneys, centers must ensure that all patients receive education about the trade-offs between accepting a KDPI > 85 kidney and remaining on dialysis. Additionally, education about KDPI and discussions about informed consent for KDPI > 85 kidneys must be repeated at multiple time points while patients are on the waiting list.

Should medical students perform pelvic exams on anaesthetised patients without explicit consent?
Research Article
Chloe Bell, Nathan Emmerich
Clinical Ethics, 28 December 2021
Abstract
There have been many reports of medical students performing pelvic exams on anaesthetised patients without the necessary consent being provided or even sought. These cases have led to an ongoing discussion regarding the need to ensure informed consent has been secured and furthermore, how it might be best obtained. We consider the importance of informed consent, the potential harm to both the patient and medical student risked by the suboptimal consent process, as well as alternatives to teaching pelvic examinations within medical school. The subsequent discussion focuses on whether medical students should perform pelvic examinations on anaesthetised patients without personally ensuring that they have given their explicit consent. Whilst we question the need to conduct pelvic examinations on anaesthetised patients in any circumstance, we argue that medical students should not perform such exams without personally securing the patients informed consent.

Perceptions and practices regarding the process of obtaining informed consent from surgical patients at a tertiary care hospital
Cross-sectional Study
Muhammad Asharib Arshad, Naureen Omar, Muhammad Zaid Amjad, Khalid Bashir, Muhammad Irfan, Irfan Ullah
Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 22 December 2021
Abstract
Background
Proper informed consent is essential for patients to have sound knowledge about the indication, risks, and benefits of a proposed surgical procedure. The study aim was to assess the perceptions of postoperative patients about the informed consent process and identify various influential factors in a tertiary care hospital.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted from February to August 2018 at a tertiary care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. A validated questionnaire was used to conduct interviews of 101 patients planning to undergo elective surgery after fulfilling all ethical considerations. A purposive sampling technique was employed to enroll and the data analysis was
performed by using SPSS version 23.
Results
Out of total 101 patients, 50 (49.5%) of them were males and the mean age of total sample was 36.98 ± 14.23 years. The majority 92 (91.1%) considered informed consent to be important and that it did not influence their surgical decision 85 (84.2%). Consent was obtained by the consulting surgeon from 41 (40.6%) patients and by the residents/house officer from 60 (59.4%) patients. Fifteen (14.8%) patients signed the consent form themselves, and 86 (85.1%) relatives of patients signed. Ninety-eight (97.0) patients were told about indications of the surgery, and 54 (53.5%) were told about possible complications. Seventy-five (74.3%) patients were informed about alternatives to surgery. Significant reasons for not signing were language (p = 0.03), educational status (p = 0.002), and not being informed by relatives before signing (p = 0.02).
Conclusion
The patients had adequate knowledge about the process of informed consent and considered it important. Factors identified as barriers to signing the consent form by the patients themselves included language, better educational status, and not being asked by relatives. It is imperative to involve the patients in the process of consent, especially in signing by them or in their presence by their surrogate.

Upgrading the Chemotherapy Consent: Trading in Paper for Tablet
Lesley Wu, Cardinale B. Smith, Jessica Parra, Mark Liu, Haley Hines Theroux, Aarti S. Bhardwaj
JCO Oncology Practice, 15 December 2021
Abstract
Purpose
Our institution participated in the Oncology Care Model, which required us to include many of the 13 elements of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) care plan into care pathways for our patients. We optimized our existing chemotherapy consent process to meet this need and maximized completion.
Methods
Our multidisciplinary committee developed a three-phase Plan-Do-Study-Act process in our breast cancer clinic: (1) update and educate providers on our paper chemotherapy form with multiple components of the NAM care plan including prognosis and treatment effects on quality of life; (2) piloted an electronic chemotherapy consent form to decrease the administrative burden; and (3) autopopulated fields within the electronic consent. We assessed feedback after cycle 1 and created a Pareto chart. The outcome measure was percent completion of chemotherapy consent documents.
Results
Baseline monthly random chart audit of 40 patients revealed 20% of paper chemotherapy consent forms were completed in their entirety among patients. When we re-educated clinicians about the new paper consent containing the NAM elements, compliance rose to nearly 30%. A Pareto chart confirmed that content redundancy and wordiness were leading to under-completion. After creating and piloting the electronic consent, compliance increased to 90%. Finally, autopopulation with drop-down selections increased and sustained completion to 100%.
Conclusion
Incorporating regulatory requirements into an existing workflow using Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology can reduce administrative burden on clinicians. Additional use of innovative technology can further increase clinician compliance with regulatory requirements while delivering high-value quality care to patients with cancer.