Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Insight in Information Provision Prior to Obtaining Surgical Informed Consent—by Audiotaping Outpatient Consultations

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Literature suggests that patient-informing process prior to obtaining surgical informed consent (SIC) does not function well. This study aimed to provide insight into the current practice of SIC in the Netherlands.

Methods

This is a prospective, observational, and multicenter study, conducted in one academic and two non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Audio recordings were made during outpatient consultations with patients presenting with Dupuytren Disease. The recorded informing process was scored according to a checklist. Written documentation of the SIC process in the patient’s chart was compared to these scored checklists. Time spent on SIC during the consultations was also recorded.

Results

A total of 41 outpatient consultations were included in the study. Consultations were conducted by 25 plastic surgeons and their residents. Average time spent on SIC was 55.6% of the total consultation time. Considerable variation was observed concerning the amount and type of information given and discussed. In 59% of the consultations, discrepancies were observed between written documentation of consultations and audio recordings. Information on treatment risks, the postoperative period, and the operating surgeon was addressed the least.

Conclusion

Despite a relatively large part of the consultation time being spent on SIC, patients received scarce information concerning treatment risks, postoperative period, and who their operating surgeon would be. Discrepancies were observed between the written documentation of SIC and information recorded on the audio recordings. This occurred predominantly in one hospital that used a pre-made list of ‘discussed information’ in its digital patient chart.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Article 7:448 section 2 of Dutch Civil Code. http://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0005290&boek=7&titeldeel=7&afdeling=5&artikel=448&z=2011-02-23&g=2011-02-23

  2. Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) Department of Internal and External Communication (2004) Report on implementation of the MTCA; from law to practice (part 2, information and consent). https://www.knmg.nl/web/file?uuid=efcf86c8-d0bc-438d-8ebc-d98ff1753831&owner=5c945405-d6ca-4deb-aa16-7af2088aa173&contentid=532&elementid=1890309

  3. Leclercq WK, Keulers BJ, Scheltinga MR et al (2010) A review of surgical informed consent: past, present, and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions. World J Surg 34(7):1406–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0542-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Dennis KE (1990) Patients’ control and the information imperative: clarification and confirmation. Nurs Res 39(3):162–166

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brody DS, Miller SM, Lerman CE et al (1989) Patient perception of involvement in medical care: relationship to illness attitudes and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 4(6):506–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shabason JE, Mao JJ, Frankel ES et al (2014) Shared decision-making and patient control in radiation oncology: implications for patient satisfaction. Cancer 120(12):1863–1870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schenker Y, Meisel A (2011) Informed consent in clinical care practical considerations in the effort to achieve ethical goals. JAMA 305(11):1–1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Leclercq WK, Keulers BJ, Houterman S et al (2013) A survey of the current practice of the informed consent process in general surgery in the Netherlands. Patient Saf Surg 7(1):4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Keulers BJ, Scheltinga MR, Houterman S et al (2008) Surgeons underestimate their patients’ desire for preoperative information. World J Surg 32(6):964–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9581-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Knops AM, Ubbink DT, Legemate DA et al (2010) Information communicated with patients in decision making about their abdominal aortic aneurysm. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 39(6):708–713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dutch Society for Plastic Surgery (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Plastische Chirurgie) (2012) Guidelines on morbus dupuytren. https://www.nvpc.nl/uploads/stand/2015-04_Richtlijn_Ziekte_van_Dupuytren148.pdf

  12. Weckbach S, Kocak T, Reichel H (2016) A survey on patients’ knowledge and expectations during informed consent for spinal surgery: can we improve the shared decision-making process? Patient Saf Surg 10:15

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Saigal R, Clark AJ, Scheer JK (2015) Adult spinal deformity patients recall fewer than 50% of the risks discussed in the informed consent process preoperatively and the recall rate worsens significantly in the postoperative period. Spine 40(14):85–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kunneman M, Marijnen CA, Rozema T et al (2015) Decision consultations on preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: large variation in benefits and harms that are addressed. Br J Cancer 112(1):39–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Koedoot CG, Oort FJ, De Haan RJ et al (2004) The content and amount of information given by medical oncologists when telling patients with advanced cancer what their treatment options are: palliative chemotherapy and watchfull-waiting. Eur J Cancer 40(2):35–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bismark MM, Gogos AJ, Clark RB et al (2012) Legal disputes over duties to disclose treatment risks to patients: a review of negligence claims and complaints in Australia. PLoS Med 9(8):e1001283

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Porta CR, Sebesta JA, Brown TA et al (2012) Training surgeons and the informed consent process: routine disclosure of trainee participation and its effect on patient willingness and consent rates. Arch Surg 147(1):57–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Patel PB, Gilchrist A, Cronan KM et al (2010) Adequacy of informed consent for lumbar puncture in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 26:739–741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fine A (1977) Informed consent in California, latent liability without ‘negligence’. West J Med 127(2):158–163

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bhattacharyya T, Yeon H, Harris MB (2005) The medical-legal aspects of informed consent in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87(11):2395–2400

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tipotsch-Maca SM, Varsits RM, Ginzel C et al (2016) Effect of a multimedia-assisted informed consent procedure on the information gain, satisfaction, and anxiety of cataract surgery patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:110–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Heller L, Parker PA, Youssef A et al (2008) Interactive digital education aid in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(3):717–724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. B. B. Burger and M. M. Veerman authors have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Isala Hospital Zwolle, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands

    B. B. Burger & M. A. Tellier

  2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Hospital Rivierenland Tiel, President Kennedylaan 1, 4002 WP, Tiel, The Netherlands

    M. M. Veerman

  3. Department of Gastrointestinal and Oncologic Surgery, Maxima Medical Center Veldhoven, De Run 4600, 5504 DB, Veldhoven, The Netherlands

    W. K. G. Leclercq

  4. Department of Plastic Surgery, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg 2, 8934 AD, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands

    C. M. Mouës-Vink

  5. Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Groningen & University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands

    P. M. N. Werker

Authors
  1. B. B. Burger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. M. Veerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. A. Tellier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. K. G. Leclercq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. M. Mouës-Vink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. M. N. Werker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. B. Burger.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burger, B.B., Veerman, M.M., Tellier, M.A. et al. Insight in Information Provision Prior to Obtaining Surgical Informed Consent—by Audiotaping Outpatient Consultations. World J Surg 43, 425–430 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4804-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4804-6

Search

Navigation