Informed consent.

Stuart Cable; Jen Lumsdaine; Martin Semple

PubMed · 14705390

Informed consent.

Stuart Cable·Jen Lumsdaine·Martin Semple

Abstract

It is essential that nurses are familiar with the principles and requirements of informed consent. This article examines the rationale and principles behind it and encourages nurses to reflect on how it affects their everyday practice.

Explore related subjects

Consent Forms Documentation Humans Informed Consent Mental Competency Nurse's Role Patient Advocacy Principle-Based Ethics United Kingdom Professional Patient Relationship Journal Article Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Stuart Cable, Jen Lumsdaine, Martin Semple. Informed consent.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14705390/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Disclosure of HIV status on informed consent forms presents an ethical dilemma for protection of human subjects.

The privacy of copies of consent forms provided to research participants cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, consent forms that disclose a subject's HIV status may result in breach of confidentiality and cause social harms. Under the ethical principle of beneficence defined in the Belmont Report, we recommend that disclosure of HIV status be through voluntary counseling and testing; however, whenever possible, copies of consent form should not specify HIV status.

Consent Forms↗

PubMed2006

Randomized consent designs in randomized controlled trials: systematic literature search.

BACKGROUND: Three types of randomized consent designs are distinguished and ranked according to the extent to which participants are informed about treatment options: single-consent (those in the experimental group learn about their assigned treatment), incomplete-double-consent (all participants learn about their assigned treatment), and complete-double-consent (all participants learn about all treatments studied). All are methodologically, ethically, and judicially controversial. Even so, their use is justified if blinding is deemed necessary, but impossible to achieve by sham procedures (placebo), and experimental treatment seems attractive to potential participants. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to give a comprehensive overview of the use of randomized consent designs. Data sources are MEDLINE (1/1977-2/2003), EMBASE (1/1984-2/2003), PsycINFO (1/1996-2/2003), the Cochrane Library, and the Science Citation Index database. REVIEW METHODS: Eligible were studies using a randomized consent design. Cluster randomized trials were excluded. One reviewer selected and data-extracted eligible papers. A second reviewer independently data-extracted 10% of the papers. Data on country of study conduct, year of commencement, area of medicine, type of design, reason(s) for use, details on approval by a research ethics committee, the index and reference intervention, nature of endpoints, and details on collection of data were extracted. Furthermore, for each trial, the rates of non-compliance and loss to follow-up were registered by treatment arm. The three types of randomized consent designs were compared as to differences between the rates of non-compliance and loss to follow-up in the separate trial arms. RESULTS: Randomized consent designs are seldom used (n=50). When used, they have often been used in the wrong circumstances (misuse). In 65% of the studies the non-compliance in the index group is larger than in the reference group. Contrary to expectation, trials using the incomplete-double design were associated with significantly higher rates of non-compliance and loss to follow-up in the reference groups than trials employing the other two versions. CONCLUSION: Trialists and physicians should be aware of the proper indication for the use of randomized consent designs.

Consent Forms↗

PubMed2006

Improving the informed consent process for surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Obtaining and documenting informed consent is of vital importance to physicians. We developed a procedure-based consent form that facilitates patient discussion and validated this process by surveying the patient regarding elements of the consent process, using an independent evaluator. METHODS: One hundred and twenty consecutive outpatients were evaluated before different neurosurgery procedures. The consent form listed specific diagnoses, procedures, alternatives (eight listed), and risks (22 listed), and each point discussed was checked off by the surgeon. Between 10 and 20 minutes later, each element was questioned by one lay-member of the office staff. A group of patients not at risk for cognitive decline were resurveyed months later. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty (100%) of 120 of patients answered correctly regarding their diagnosis and the planned procedure. Four hundred and twenty-eight alternative treatments were discussed, and 420 (98.1%) of the 428 were recalled correctly. Of 1207 risks that were discussed, 1176 (97.4%) were recalled correctly. When a subset of the patients were reevaluated at a mean of 4.5 months later, all 20 patients correctly recalled their procedure and diagnosis. Of 79 alternatives discussed with patients before surgery, 73 (92.4%) were subsequently recalled. Of 217 risks discussed before surgery, 199 (91.7%) were recalled. Although the immediate or delayed recall rates were high (> 90%), there was a reduction in the recall rate over time (alternatives, P = .007; risks, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A consent process designed for an individual surgeon's practice was validated and showed high rates of patient recall in the postprocedural period. We think that this method to obtain and document informed consent should be considered for use by physicians.

Consent Forms↗