Consent: The practice of the Nigerian Orthodontist
Sylvia Etim, Onyinye Dorothy Ume
International Dental Journal, October 2024
Open Access
Abstract
Aim or Purpose
The aim of the study was to survey the knowledge and practices of Nigerian Orthodontists regarding the obtainment of consent before administering procedures capable of modifying the facial profiles of patients.
Materials and Method
This was a 6-months cross-sectional study design involving Orthodontic practitioners in Nigeria. A 14-item questionnaire was administered to participants via google form, consisting of 2 sections. Section A elicited information on socio-demographic data, professional status, and institution of practice. Section B elicited information on the knowledge and practice of consent taking before Orthodontic procedures. Data collected was analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics with significance set at P value > 0.05. Ethical approval was duly obtained from the Research and Ethics committee of University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital.
Results
There were 66 participants (Male-46; Female-20) with mean age 43.7 +/- 9.26 years. Those who had knowledge of informed consent (64, 97%), verbal consent (57, 86.4%), and implied consent (49, 74.2%), but in terms of practices, most obtained informed (52, 78.8%), next was expressed consent (27,40.9%) and least was surrogate consent (6,9.1%). Informed consent was obtained more for fixed appliance therapy and aligners (62, 94% ) than removable appliances (49,74%).
Conclusion
Most Nigerian Orthodontic practitioners are aware of the importance of obtaining consent from their patients and they do obtain appropriate consent before carrying out Orthodontic procedures.

Enhancing Professional Awareness of Informed Consent : Safeguarding the Rights of Patients and Practitioners
Min Ji Kim
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 30 September 2024
Abstract
Informed consent is a crucial communication process between doctors and patients for obtaining patients’ approval before initiating medical treatment. It is derived from the legal principles of medical contracts and requires doctors to explain the treatment process to patients. Surgeons should be aware of informed consent not only to avoid unnecessary litigation risks but also to provide patients with the right to self-determination. The aim of the study is to help surgeons in Korea understand the legal doctrine on informed consent for practical application. This article reviews the legal doctrine of IC according to 4W1H-why, who, what, when, and how-with judicial cases to communicate effectively with patients in clinical settings. Regardless of seniority or rank, doctors may provide competent patients with information to protect their rights to self-determination. Informed consent should be advanced for patients to consider, discuss with significant others, and determine whether or not to undergo medical treatment. At that stage, patients need to be informed of the necessity, risks, and so on. The most common method of informed consent is an oral explanation utilizing certain forms for documentation. However, the informed consent of patients can be exempted on certain occasions. Optimal informed consent, when implemented, leads to patient-centered care, which significantly improves patient satisfaction and outcomes. Ultimately, it not only protects doctors from litigation risks but also upholds patients’ autonomy.

Researchers experience and views on participants’ comprehension of informed consent in clinical trials in Malawi: a descriptive qualitative study
Research
Dorothy Maxwell Kazembe, Yimtubezinash Woldeamanuel, Solomon Mequanente Abay
BMC Medical Ethics, 27 September 2024
Open access
Abstract
Background
Informed consent is the cornerstone of research ethics. One of its goals is that participants enter research with an understanding of what their participation entails. This paper is a study on how researchers understand the informed consent process. Previous studies have looked at this topic from a research participant perspective. However, few studies focus on the perspectives of the researchers. Therefore, this is an important paper that highlights an important issue (informed consent) from the perspective of those who administer it during research.
Methods
In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 researchers from 3 different research centers in Malawi working in clinical trials. The data was analyzed using open code utilizing the thematic approach to qualitative data.
Results
This study identified that researchers have good awareness of the role of informed consent, how important it is for participants to understand the given information and ways to adjust their practice accordingly when obtaining it in order to enhance participant understanding. According to the research staff, most participants do not really understand all the concepts of the study at the initial visit, they gain more understanding during subsequent visits. It was emphasized that the best method of facilitating informed consent is reading the informed consent to the participant, thus a face-to-face conversation. Long and complex informed consent was identified as one of the barriers to participant understanding of the informed consent. Shortening the informed consent form and having additional conversation with the participants was suggested as one way of improving participant comprehension.
Conclusion
Most of the participants understand much of the information during subsequent visits as you keep reminding them since informed consent is an ongoing process. Existing relationship or trust between a participant and a researcher, may influence participants’ decision and misguide their understanding on the purpose of the study. Adequate time should be allocated to informed consent discussions. Shortening the informed consent forms and having additional conversations with potential participants may help improve their understanding.

Comparison of informed consent for breast cancer surgery in the UK and the Czech republic and patients’ satisfaction with the process
Monika Rezacova
BMJ Surgery, Interventions, & Health Technologies, 27 September 2024
Abstract
Background
Informed consent is a concept accepted largely in the world, however its interpretation varies. Understanding the diagnosis and process of treatment should be a crucial part of doctor-patient relationship.
Methods
We have assessed 100 patients with a new breast cancer diagnosis (50 in each centre). We have compared the consent forms, risks mentioned to the patient and proposed surgery. A questionnaire was given to patients following the consent process to assess patients‘ satisfaction with information given and possibility of outcome change.
Results
In the UK, patients were given a surgical management plan with multiple potential risks listed on consent. Patients in Czech were given all possible surgical options without specific plan and only few complications. Patients in the UK were satisfied although some of them would appreciate fewer information on risks. Patients in Czech had trust in the doctor’s decision however majority of them would appreciate the exact procedure proposed and more information regarding risks.
Conclusion
Although patients had very different experiences, the vast majority would like to hear the exact type of procedure that is being done and list of significant risks.

Practices of Informed Written Consent for Elective Urological Procedures at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Sudan
Mohammed Elsiddig, Mohammed Hassan
Cureus, 26 September 2024
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to assess informed consent practices in elective urological surgeries at a tertiary care facility.
Materials and methods
A retrospective cross-sectional survey was carried out between March 1, 2023 and April 1, 2023, at the Department of Urology, Omdurman Military Hospital, Sudan. We included all patients who had undergone elective urological procedures under local, spinal, or general anesthesia. The medical records were accessed to analyze the consent forms’ standards. A total of 42 consent forms were included and analyzed. We use the General Medical Council’s (GMC) Guidance on Professional Standards and Ethics for Doctors: Decision Making and Consent, and the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) of England’s Consent: Supported Decision-Making as the standard for our study. The GMC and the RCS of England have provided comprehensive and standardized guidelines for obtaining informed written consent, including indications, benefits, risks involved, and alternatives in addition to demographics, patient details, responsible consultant, diagnosis, and title of the surgery, intended benefits, probable risks, type of anesthesia, consenting doctor’s name, designation, and signature, and the patient’s signature and name.
Results
A total of 42 consent forms were included. The diagnosis and the intended surgical procedure were mentioned in all consents. The potential benefits and risks were discussed in 36 (85.7%) and 18 (42.9%) cases, respectively. The type of anesthesia was discussed in 39 (92.9%) of cases. The likely result of not having the procedure and the alternative treatment: Recorded completion rates of 10 (23.8%) and 12 (28.6%), respectively. Patient demographics were completely documented in 41 (97.6%) forms. Senior doctors were only involved in 14 (33.3%) of the consents. Details of the consenting doctor, including name, title, and signature, were present in 30 cases (71.4%), and the date of signing the consent was documented in 38 cases (90.5%). The completeness of the consent form correlated with the level of the doctor obtaining it, with consultants achieving the highest completion rates (100%), followed by registrars (66.7%) and medical officers (35.7%).
Conclusion
The current practices of informed consent were found to be substandard. Handwritten consent forms do not adhere to the recommended guidelines for informed consent in elective urological procedures. It is preferable to utilize a pre-designed consent form, allowing for personalized additions based on the patient’s specifics. Our recommendation is to organize an educational session for junior doctors to emphasize proper consent procedures, and deepen their knowledge of common urological elective procedures, and associated risks. This approach promotes adherence to best clinical practices and minimizes the risk of legal challenges.