Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consenting to Surgery: Assessing the Patient’s Capacity to Make Decisions About Own Medical Care

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Perioperative Psychiatry

Abstract

Informed consent is the cornerstone of the therapeutic relationship between physician and patient. However, the peri-surgical setting poses several challenges to implementing an effective informed consent process. This clinically oriented chapter provides an overview of the informed consent process in surgical care including making recommendations for enhancing patient comprehension, identifying issues while assessing capacity, and enumerating next steps to take if patients are found to be incapacitated. The chapter will also identify several special issues relating to mental and physical illness that surgical teams may encounter.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jacoby LH, Maloy B, Cirenza E, Shelton W, Goggins T, Balint J. The basis of informed consent for BMT patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999;23(7):711–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92(1914).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Natanson v. Kline, 350 P. 2d 1093(1960).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772(1972).

    Google Scholar 

  5. DeGeorge BR Jr, Archual AJ, Gehle BD, Morgan RF. Enhanced informed consent in hand surgery: techniques to improve the informed consent process. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;79(6):521–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Levy MK, Gruen RL, Dunn EJ, Orav EJ, et al. Geographic variation in informed consent law: two standards for disclosure of treatment risks. J Empir Leg Stud. 2007;4(1):103–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. The Joint Commission. Informed consent: more than getting a signature. Quick safety. 2016:(21). Available at: www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/23/Quick_Safety_Issue_Twenty-One_February_2016.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2018.

  8. Appelbaum PS. Clinical practice. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(18):1834–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Beauchamp TL. Informed consent: its history, meaning, and present challenges. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2011;20(4):515–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fedson SE, MacKenzie KK, Delgado ED, Abraham MN, Estep JD, Blumenthal-Barby JS, et al. Mapping the informed consent process for left ventricular assist devices. ASAIO J. 2018;64(5):630–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Medicaid. CfMa. Revisions to the hospital interpretive guidelines for informed consent. 2013. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Provider-Enrollment-and-Certification/SurveyCertificationGenInfo/downloads/SCLetter07-17.pdf.

  12. Association AM. Chapter 2: opinions on consent, communication & decision making. 2016. https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/code-of-medical-ethics-chapter-2.pdf.

  13. Ophthalmology. AAo. Practice guidelines for informed consent. 2010. https://www.aao.org/patient-safety-statement/practice-guidelines-informed-consent.

  14. Surgeons. BotACo. Procedure-specific consents available online. 2013. http://bulletin.facs.org/2013/08/procedure-specific-consents/

  15. Chrimes N, Marshall SD. The illusion of informed consent. Anaesthesia. 2018;73(1):9–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kriwanek S, Armbruster C, Beckerhinn P, Blauensteier W, Gschwantler M. Patients’ assessment and recall of surgical information after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Surg. 1998;15(6):669–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stanley BM, Walters DJ, Maddern GJ. Informed consent: how much information is enough? Aust N Z J Surg. 1998;68(11):788–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Donovan EE, Crook C, Brown LE, Pastorek AE, Hall CA, Mackert MS, et al. An experimental test of medical disclosure and consent documentation: assessing patient comprehension, self-efficacy, and uncertainty. Commun Monogr. 2014;81:239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Little M, Jordens CF, McGrath C, Montgomery K, Lipworth W, Kerridge I. Informed consent and medical ordeal: a qualitative study. Intern Med J. 2008;38(8):624–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patenaude AF, Rappeport JM, Smith BR. The physician’s influence on informed consent for bone marrow transplantation. Theor Med. 1986;7(2):165–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tait AR, Teig MK, Voepel-Lewis T. Informed consent for anesthesia: a review of practice and strategies for optimizing the consent process. Can J Anaesth. 2014;61(9):832–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Michalski A, Stopa M, Miskowiak B. Use of multimedia technology in the doctor-patient relationship for obtaining patient informed consent. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22:3994–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Grady C, Cummings SR, Rowbotham MC, McConnell MV, Ashley EA, Kang G. Informed consent. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(9):856–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wollinger C, Hirnschall N, Findl O. Computer-based tutorial to enhance the quality and efficiency of the informed-consent process for cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(4):655–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Palmer BW, Harmell AL. Assessment of healthcare decision-making capacity. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2016;31(6):530–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Pescosolido BA, Monahan J, Link BG, Stueve A, Kikuzawa S. The public’s view of the competence, dangerousness, and need for legal coercion of persons with mental health problems. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1339–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Resnick PJ, Sorrentino R. Forensic issues in consultation-liaison psychiatry. Psychiatric Times. 2005;13(14):1.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moye J, Marson DC. Assessment of decision-making capacity in older adults: an emerging area of practice and research. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007;62(1):P3–P11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Main BG, McNair AGK, Huxtable R, Donovan JL, Thomas SJ, Kinnersley P, et al. Core information sets for informed consent to surgical interventions: baseline information of importance to patients and clinicians. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. Using the MacArthur competence assessment tool – treatment. Assessing competence to consent to treatment: a guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lai JM, Gill TM, Cooney LM, Bradley EH, Hawkins KA, Karlawish JH. Everyday decision-making ability in older persons with cognitive impairment. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;16(8):693–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Candia PC, Barba AC. Mental capacity and consent to treatment in psychiatric patients: the state of the research. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2011;24(5):442–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bester J, Cole CM, Kodish E. The limits of informed consent for an overwhelmed patient: clinicians’ role in protecting patients and preventing overwhelm. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(9):869–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ivashkov Y, Van Norman GA. Informed consent and the ethical management of the older patient. Anesthesiol Clin. 2009;27(3):569–80, table of contents.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Surman OS, Cosimi AB, DiMartini A. Psychiatric care of patients undergoing organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2009;87(12):1753–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hindmarch T, Hotopf M, Owen GS. Depression and decision-making capacity for treatment or research: a systematic review. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH. Competency to consent to research: a psychiatric overview. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982;39(8):951–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gergel T, Owen GS. Fluctuating capacity and advance decision-making in bipolar affective disorder – self-binding directives and self-determination. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2015;40:92–101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Kirkendall A, Linton K, Farris S. Intellectual disabilities and decision making at end of life: a literature review. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2017;30(6):982–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Goede M, Wheeler M. Advance directives, living wills, and futility in perioperative care. Surg Clin North Am. 2015;95(2):443–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rinkus K. The pregnancy exclusion in advance directives: are women’s constitutional rights being violated? Pub Int Law Rep. 2014;19(2):94–100.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kim SY, Karlawish JH, Kim HM, Wall IF, Bozoki AC, Appelbaum PS. Preservation of the capacity to appoint a proxy decision maker: implications for dementia research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(2):214–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Pope TM. Legal fundamentals of surrogate decision making. Chest. 2012;141(4):1074–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. DeMartino ES, Dudzinski DM, Doyle CK, Sperry BP, Gregory SE, Siegler M, et al. Who decides when a patient can’t? Statutes on alternate decision makers. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(15):1478–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. ABA. ABA commission on law and aging : health care decision making. 2017. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/resources/health_care_decision_making/.

  46. Lo B. Resolving ethical dilemmas: a guide for clinicians. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Scarrow AM, Scarrow MR. Informed consent for the neurosurgeon. Surg Neurol. 2002;57(1):63–8; discussion 8-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Etchells E, Sharpe G, Burgess MM, Singer PA. Bioethics for clinicians: 2. Disclosure. CMAJ. 1996;155(4):387–91.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Klove CA, DiBoise SJ, Pang B, Yarbrough WC. Informed consent: ethical and legal aspects. Thorac Surg Clin. 2005;15(2):213–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bostick NA, Sade R, McMahon JW, Benjamin R. Report of the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs: withholding information from patients: rethinking the propriety of “therapeutic privilege”. J Clin Ethics. 2006;17(4):302–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Grauberger J, Kerezoudis P, Choudhry AJ, Alvi MA, Nassr A, Currier B, et al. Allegations of failure to obtain informed consent in spinal surgery medical malpractice claims. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(6):e170544.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Agarwal N, Gupta R, Agarwal P, Matthew P, Wolferz R Jr, Shah A, et al. Descriptive analysis of state and federal spine surgery malpractice litigation in the United States. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;43(14):984–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Svider PF, Blake DM, Husain Q, Mauro AC, Turbin RE, Eloy JA, et al. In the eyes of the law: malpractice litigation in oculoplastic surgery. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;30(2):119–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Abbott RL. Informed consent in cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(1):52–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Raymond MR, Mee J, King A, Haist SA, Winward ML. What new residents do during their initial months of training. Acad Med. 2011;86(10 Suppl):S59–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Schenker Y, Wang F, Selig SJ, Ng R, Fernandez A. The impact of language barriers on documentation of informed consent at a hospital with on-site interpreter services. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(Suppl 2):294–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Bezuidenhout L, Borry P. Examining the role of informal interpretation in medical interviews. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(3):159–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Scharman CD, Burger D, Shatzel JJ, Kim E, DeLoughery TG. Treatment of individuals who cannot receive blood products for religious or other reasons. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(12):1370–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Stamford Hospital vs. Nelly E. Vega, 674 A. 2d 821(1996).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Belaouchi M, Romero E, Mazzinari G, Esparza M, Garcia-Cebrian C, Gil F, et al. Management of massive bleeding in a Jehovah’s Witness obstetric patient: the overwhelming importance of a pre-established multidisciplinary protocol. Blood Transfus. 2016;14(6):541–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law and Psychiatry Division, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Maya Prabhu

Authors
  1. Maya Prabhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maya Prabhu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, New Haven, CT, USA

    Paula C. Zimbrean

  2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA

    Mark A. Oldham

  3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA

    Hochang Benjamin Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Prabhu, M. (2019). Consenting to Surgery: Assessing the Patient’s Capacity to Make Decisions About Own Medical Care. In: Zimbrean, P., Oldham, M., Lee, H. (eds) Perioperative Psychiatry. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99774-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99774-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99773-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99774-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation