Advertisement
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Home

Room for Improvement

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on the Informed Consent Process for Emergency Surgery

      Abstract

      Objective

      To compare recall of complications and surgical details discussed during informed consent and perception of the consent process in patients undergoing emergent vs elective surgery.

      Methods

      Studies were identified from PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 1966, through April 18, 2018. Included studies compared patient recall and perception regarding informed consent in those undergoing emergent vs elective surgery. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for recall of complications and surgical details, patient satisfaction, perception of sufficient information being delivered on surgical risks, report of having read written consent, and factors that interfered with consent.

      Results

      Eleven observational studies (3178 patients) were included. The rate of recall of surgical complications (255 of 504 [50.6%] vs 321 of 446 [72.0%]; OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.80) was lower in patients undergoing emergent vs elective surgery. Meta-analysis revealed a decreased rate of patient satisfaction with the consent process (319 of 459 [69.5%] vs 882 of 1064 [82.9%]; OR. 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83) and fewer patients having read the consent form (130 of 395 [32.9%] vs 424 of 714 [59.4%]; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.27-0.46) when undergoing emergent compared with elective surgery. Patients undergoing emergent surgery listed pain, analgesic medications, and fatigue as factors likely to interfere with consent.

      Conclusion

      Patients undergoing emergent surgery have poor recall of the informed consent process and surgical complications. Furthermore, patients report lower rates of satisfaction, and with fewer patients reading written consent documentation, our findings illuminate problems with the current communication process. There is a need to develop effective tools to improve informed consent in emergency surgery.

      Abbreviations and Acronyms:

      GRADE (Grading of Recommendations), Assessment (Development and Evaluations), M-H (Mantel-Haenszel), NOS (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), OR (odds ratio), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis), RE (random effects)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Mayo Clinic Proceedings
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hall D.E.
        • Prochazka A.V.
        • Fink A.S.
        Informed consent for clinical treatment.
        CMAJ. 2012; 184: 533-540
        • Kay R.
        • Siriwardena A.K.
        The process of informed consent for urgent abdominal surgery.
        J Med Ethics. 2001; 27: 157-161
        • Park B.Y.
        • Kwon J.
        • Kang S.R.
        • Hong S.E.
        Informed consent as a litigation strategy in the field of aesthetic surgery: an analysis based on court precedents.
        Arch Plast Surg. 2016; 43: 402-410
        • Vessey W.
        • Siriwardena A.
        Informed consent in patients with acute abdominal pain.
        Br J Surg. 1998; 85: 1278-1280
        • Bhattacharyya T.
        • Yeon H.
        • Harris M.B.
        The medical-legal aspects of informed consent in orthopaedic surgery.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 2395-2400
        • Nijhawan L.P.
        • Janodia M.D.
        • Muddukrishna B.S.
        • et al.
        Informed consent: issues and challenges.
        J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2013; 4: 134-140
        • Kegley J.A.
        Challenges to informed consent.
        EMBO Rep. 2004; 5: 832-836
        • Satyanarayana Rao K.H.
        Informed consent: an ethical obligation or legal compulsion?.
        J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2008; 1: 33-35
        • Jones C.H.
        • O'Neill S.
        • McLean K.A.
        • Wigmore S.J.
        • Harrison E.M.
        Patient experience and overall satisfaction after emergency abdominal surgery.
        BMC Surg. 2017; 17: 76
        • Knapp T.A.
        • Huff R.L.
        Emerging trends in the physician's duty to disclose: an update of Canterbury v. Spence.
        J Leg Med (N Y). 1975; 3: 31-35
        • Liberati A.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: e1-e34
        • Balk E.M.
        • Chung M.
        • Chen M.L.
        • Chang L.K.
        • Trikalinos T.A.
        Data extraction from machine-translated versus original language randomized trial reports: a comparative study.
        Syst Rev. 2013; 2: 97
        • Wells G.A.
        • Shea B.
        • O'Connell D.
        • et al.
        The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses.
        The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada2013: 1-4
        • Deeks J.J.
        • Dinnes J.
        • D'Amico R.
        • et al.
        • International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group
        • European Carotid Surgery Trial Collaborative Group
        Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.
        Health Technol Assess. 2003; 7 (iii-x, 1-173)
        • Viswanathan M.
        • Patnode C.D.
        • Berkman N.D.
        • et al.
        Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 97: 26-34
        • Stang A.
        Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.
        Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25: 603-605
        • Kavanagh B.P.
        The GRADE system for rating clinical guidelines.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000094
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Vist G.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias).
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 407-415
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • et al.
        • GRADE Working Group
        GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1294-1302
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1303-1310
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • et al.
        • GRADE Working Group
        GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1283-1293
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Montori V.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1277-1282
        • Nigussie S.
        • Belachew T.
        • Wolancho W.
        Predictors of preoperative anxiety among surgical patients in Jimma University Specialized Teaching Hospital, South Western Ethiopia.
        BMC Surg. 2014; 14: 67
        • Macaskill P.
        • Walter S.D.
        • Irwig L.
        A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
        Stat Med. 2001; 20: 641-654
        • Lau J.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        • Terrin N.
        • Schmid C.H.
        • Olkin I.
        The case of the misleading funnel plot.
        BMJ. 2006; 333: 597-600
        • Akkad A.
        • Jackson C.
        • Kenyon S.
        • Dixon-Woods M.
        • Taub N.
        • Habiba M.
        Informed consent for elective and emergency surgery: questionnaire study.
        BJOG. 2004; 111: 1133-1138
        • Bhangu A.
        • Hood E.
        • Datta A.
        • Mangaleshkar S.
        Is informed consent effective in trauma patients?.
        J Med Ethics. 2008; 34: 780-782
        • Egri M.
        • Celbis O.
        • Karaca M.
        • Ozdemir B.
        • Kok A.N.
        The informed consent status for surgery patients in eastern Turkey: a cross-sectional study.
        Indian J Med Ethics. 2008; 5: 26-28
        • Khan S.K.
        • Karuppaiah K.
        • Bajwa A.S.
        The influence of process and patient factors on the recall of consent information in mentally competent patients undergoing surgery for neck of femur fractures.
        Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012; 94: 308-312
        • Odumosu M.
        • Pathak S.
        • Barnet-Lamb E.
        • Akin-Deko O.
        • Joshi V.
        • Selo-Ojeme D.
        Understanding and recollection of the risks associated with cesarean delivery during the consent process.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012; 118: 153-155
        • Osuna E.
        • Pérez-Cárceles M.D.
        • Pérez-Moreno J.A.
        • Luna A.
        Informed consent. Evaluation of the information provided to patients before anaesthesia and surgery.
        Med Law. 1998; 17: 511-518
        • Pérez-Moreno J.A.
        • Pérez-Cárceles M.D.
        • Osuna E.
        • Luna A.
        [Preoperative information and informed consent in surgically treated patients].
        Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 1998; 45: 130-135
        • Perić O.
        • Mišić M.
        • Tirić D.
        • Penava N.
        • Bušić D.
        • Tomić V.
        Patients' experience regarding informed consent in elective and emergency surgeries.
        Med Glas (Zenica). 2018; 15: 179-185
        • Sahin N.
        • Oztürk A.
        • Ozkan Y.
        • Demirhan Erdemir A.
        What do patients recall from informed consent given before orthopedic surgery?.
        Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2010; 44: 469-475
        • Schopp A.
        • Dassen T.
        • Välimäki M.
        • et al.
        [Autonomy and informed consent in surgical care-patients' and staff perceptions].
        Pflege. 2004; 17: 155-164
        • Turner P.
        • Williams C.
        Informed consent: patients listen and read, but what information do they retain?.
        N Z Med J. 2002; 115: U218
        • Gammelgaard A.
        • Mortensen O.S.
        • Rossel P.
        • in collaboration with the DANAMI-2 Investigators
        Patients' perceptions of informed consent in acute myocardial infarction research: a questionnaire based survey of the consent process in the DANAMI-2 trial.
        Heart. 2004; 90: 1124-1128
        • Zarnegar R.
        • Brown M.R.
        • Henley M.
        • Tidman V.
        • Pathmanathan A.
        Patient perceptions and recall of consent for regional anaesthesia compared with consent for surgery.
        J R Soc Med. 2015; 108: 451-456
        • Ley P.
        Memory for medical information.
        Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1979; 18: 245-255
        • Hallock J.L.
        • Rios R.
        • Handa V.L.
        Patient satisfaction and informed consent for surgery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 216: 181.e1-181.e7
        • McFadden B.L.
        • Constantine M.L.
        • Hammil S.L.
        • et al.
        Patient recall 6 weeks after surgical consent for midurethral sling using mesh.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24: 2099-2104
        • Abed H.
        • Rogers R.
        • Helitzer D.
        • Warner T.D.
        Informed consent in gynecologic surgery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 674.e1-674.e5
        • Brenner L.H.
        • Brenner A.T.
        • Horowitz D.
        Beyond informed consent: educating the patient.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467: 348-351
        • Woodward W.E.
        Informed consent of volunteers: a direct measurement of comprehension and retention of information.
        Clin Res. 1979; 27: 248-252
        • McGuire L.C.
        Remembering what the doctor said: organization and adults' memory for medical information.
        Exp Aging Res. 1996; 22: 403-428
        • Sung V.W.
        • Kauffman N.
        • Raker C.A.
        • Myers D.L.
        • Clark M.A.
        Validation of decision-making outcomes for female pelvic floor disorders.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 198: 575.e1-575.e6
        • Kenton K.
        • Pham T.
        • Mueller E.
        • Brubaker L.
        Patient preparedness: an important predictor of surgical outcome.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 654.e1-654.e6
        • Agård A.
        • Hermerén G.
        • Herlitz J.
        Patients' experiences of intervention trials on the treatment of myocardial infarction: is it time to adjust the informed consent procedure to the patient's capacity?.
        Heart. 2001; 86: 632-637
        • Langdon I.J.
        • Hardin R.
        • Learmonth I.D.
        Informed consent for total hip arthroplasty: does a written information sheet improve recall by patients?.
        Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2002; 84: 404-408
        • Gauld V.A.
        Written advice: compliance and recall.
        J R Coll Gen Pract. 1981; 31: 553-556
        • Ley P.
        • Bradshaw P.W.
        • Eaves D.
        • Walker C.M.
        A method for increasing patients' recall of information presented by doctors.
        Psychol Med. 1973; 3: 217-220
        • Griffey R.T.
        • Shin N.
        • Jones S.
        • et al.
        The impact of teach-back on comprehension of discharge instructions and satisfaction among emergency patients with limited health literacy: a randomized, controlled study.
        J Commun Healthc. 2015; 8: 10-21
        • Tamariz L.
        • Palacio A.
        • Robert M.
        • Marcus E.N.
        Improving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy: a systematic review.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2013; 28: 121-126
        • Miller C.K.
        • O'Donnell D.C.
        • Searight H.R.
        • Barbarash R.A.
        The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects.
        Pharmacotherapy. 1996; 16: 872-878
        • Sugarman J.
        • Lavori P.W.
        • Boeger M.
        • et al.
        Evaluating the quality of informed consent.
        Clin Trials. 2005; 2: 34-41
        • Clark S.
        • Mangram A.
        • Ernest D.
        • Lebron R.
        • Peralta L.
        The informed consent: a study of the efficacy of informed consents and the associated role of language barriers.
        J Surg Educ. 2011; 68: 143-147
        • Bottrell M.M.
        • Alpert H.
        • Fischbach R.L.
        • Emanuel L.L.
        Hospital informed consent for procedure forms: facilitating quality patient-physician interaction.
        Arch Surg. 2000; 135: 26-33
        • Deyo R.A.
        • Cherkin D.C.
        • Weinstein J.
        • Howe J.
        • Ciol M.
        • Mulley Jr., A.G.
        Involving patients in clinical decisions: impact of an interactive video program on use of back surgery.
        Med Care. 2000; 38: 959-969
        • Abujarad F.
        • Alfano S.
        • Bright T.J.
        • et al.
        Building an informed consent tool starting with the patient: the patient-centered virtual multimedia interactive informed consent (VIC).
        AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2017; 2017: 374-383
        • Decker C.
        • Arnold S.V.
        • Olabiyi O.
        • et al.
        Implementing an innovative consent form: the PREDICT experience.
        Implement Sci. 2008; 3: 58
        • Fink A.S.
        • Prochazka A.V.
        • Henderson W.G.
        • et al.
        Enhancement of surgical informed consent by addition of repeat back: a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.
        Ann Surg. 2010; 252: 27-36