A Systemic Review of the “Informed Consent” Process for Aesthetic Cosmetic Surgery Procedures
Review Article
Jacqueline Maroon, Syeda Zakia Hossain, Lynette Mackenzie
The American Journal of Cosmetic Surgery, 17 June 2024
Open Access
Abstract
   Informed consent is a foundational component of ethical patient care and may be effectively provided when a competent patient is given pertinent information to make well-informed decisions on their health care. Various studies have considered patients’ experiences with surgery for aesthetic reasons, rather than plastic surgery procedures which are medically warranted for reasons such as restoring form and function. Current empirical discourse on the consenting process, and ultimately how informed patients undergoing cosmetic surgical procedures are, is scant, particularly in Australia.
The key aim of this review was to synthesize qualitative and quantitative research which considers the consenting process and the factors which impact on the patient’s decision-making process to undergo invasive cosmetic procedures. Eligible studies were identified via systematic searching across the PubMed and Medline databases; and hand searches were conducted of gray literature databases including university databases and Google Scholar. Reference lists of included studies were also examined for relevant studies. Eligible studies had to meet specific participant criteria including an age requirement of 19 to 64 years and discuss factors or present discussion surrounding the “informed consent” process for invasive cosmetic procedures. The characteristics and findings of each study were extracted. The studies were analyzed and presented under question categories. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of evidence. Thirty-one studies were eligible for inclusion. Most studies were quantitative (90.3%). The highest proportion of these studies were focused on the United States (51.6%), followed by the United Kingdom (12.9%). The dominant methodology utilized by these studies was questionnaires/surveys (37.5%). The literature identified was classed into one of the 5 groups based on their overall concepts and objective. These 5 categories included (1) articles focusing on the types of information which should be communicated to a patient before they undergo their procedure or provide consent; (2) legal claims and cases based on a lacking informed consent; (3) sources of information patients access to become “informed” on their procedure; (4) studies exploring the readability of online information on certain invasive cosmetic procedures; and (5) studies focusing on the most effective methods of obtaining patient consent for cosmetic surgery procedures. These categories were reformulated into research questions and addressed in the section “Results of the Findings.” Most of the studies included in this review were quantitative (90.3%). Most studies (where gender was mentioned) had a higher population of female participants or respondents. Women have a greater tendency to have cosmetic surgery opposed to men. There are few studies (particularly qualitative studies) exploring the pre-operative patient experience in Australia for those having or seeking cosmetic surgery.
A key stage in this process is obtaining and providing informed consent. A “lack of informed consent” is one of the more dominant factors identified consistently throughout these studies which focus on legal case reviews and claims. A significant source of information patients use to become informed of their procedure is through the Internet. This may be problematic as the readability of online materials is most commonly above the recommended reading level in multiple jurisdictions; and some online materials may have questionable accuracy or validity. Whether or not patients verify the information they access through external sources such as this, is of concern. There have been minimal studies identified exploring the patient experience pre-operatively including during their consultations and decision to provide consent.

Through Patients’ Eyes: Evaluating the Consent Process in Elective Orthopedic Surgery at a Tertiary Referral Center in Ireland
Abobaker Younis, Mehad Elmubarak, Hussam Elkhwad
Cureus, 6 June 2024; 16(6)
Abstract
Background
Informed consent is a critical component of ethical clinical practice, particularly in elective orthopedic procedures. It ensures that patients understand the nature, benefits, and risks of the medical procedures they agree to undergo. This study aims to evaluate the informed consent process at Merlin Park University Hospital from the patient’s perspective.
Methods
This cross-sectional observational study included 140 participants undergoing elective orthopedic procedures. Data were collected via a questionnaire focusing on socio-demographic information and the informed consent process, including details on who provided the information, where and when the consent was signed, and patient understanding and satisfaction. Responses were analyzed using SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
Results
The majority of participants were females, with 80 (57.1%) women and 60 (42.9%) men. The average age of the participants was 60.86 years. Most participants were employed, constituting 75 (53.6%) of the sample, and 55 (39.3%) had attained university or higher education. The most common procedures were total hip replacement, with 30 (21.4%) participants, and total knee replacement, with 20 (14.3%) participants. Information during the consent process was primarily provided by consultants in 80 (57.1%) cases. High satisfaction levels were reported, with 139 (99.3%) participants expressing satisfaction. Significant correlations were found between satisfaction and the type of healthcare provider, type of operation, and educational level.
Conclusion
The informed consent process at Merlin Park University Hospital is generally effective, with high patient satisfaction and understanding. However, there is a preference for concise information delivery. Enhancing the process through personalized information delivery could further improve patient satisfaction and comprehension. These findings contribute valuable insights into patient-centered care and informed consent in elective orthopedic surgeries.

Transplantation and consent
Healthcare ethics and communication
John Saunders
Medicine, 29 May 2024
Abstract
This is an overview of issues relating to consent in donation and transplantation, including the types of consent currently in use in organ donation. There is a discussion of altruistic consent, opt-in, opt-out and deemed consent, and mandated choice. Donation of organs after cardiac death and after brain death is described. Reference is made to current guidance from the UK National Health Service, the Human Tissue Authority, the UK Government and the Spanish model of Organ Donation and Transplantation.

Risks and Complications Discussed in Consent for Strabismus Surgery
Research Article
Carolyn May, Evan Silverstein
Journal of Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility, 28 May 2024
Abstract
This study is a qualitative analysis of the consent process for strabismus surgery, using recordings of physicians doing a mock consent for bilateral medial rectus recession. There is considerable variation in the risks of surgery and odds of complications that are cited by pediatric ophthalmologists during the consent process. We propose a reference table with complication rates for use during the consent process.

Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent: Talking with Surgical Patients
Margaret L Schwarze, Robert M Arnold, Justin T Clapp, Jacqueline M Kruser
Hastings Center Report, May 2024; 54(3) pp 11-14
Abstract
For more than sixty years, surgeons have used bioethical strategies to promote patient self-determination, many of these now collectively described as “informed consent.” Yet the core framework-understanding, risks, benefits, and alternatives-fails to support patients in deliberation about treatment. We find that surgeons translate this framework into an overly complicated technical explanation of disease and treatment and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will “fix” the problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and present untenable options as a matter of patient choice. We propose a novel framework called “better conversations.” Herein, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm shift meets the standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of treatment.