Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Research article

Consent in pregnancy - an observational study of ante-natal care in the context of Montgomery: all about risk?

Authors: Jacqueline A. Nicholls, Anna L. David, Joseph Iskaros, Dimitrios Siassakos, Anne Lanceley

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

How to best support pregnant women in making truly autonomous decisions which accord with current consent law is poorly understood and problematic for them and their healthcare professionals. This observational study examined a range of ante-natal consultations where consent for an intervention took place to determine key themes during the encounter.

Methods

Qualitative research in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Sixteen consultations between pregnant women and their healthcare professionals (nine obstetricians and three midwives) where ante-natal interventions were discussed and consent was documented were directly observed. Data were collectively analysed to identify key themes characterising the consent process.

Results

Four themes were identified: 1) Clinical framing - by framing the consultation in terms of the clinical decision to be made HCPs miss the opportunity to assess what really matters to a pregnant woman. For many women the opportunity to feel that their previous experiences had been ‘heard’ was an important but sometimes neglected prelude to the ensuing consultation; 2) Clinical risk dominated narrative - all consultations were dominated by information related to risk; discussion of reasonable alternatives was not always observed and women’s understanding of information was seldom verified making compliance with current law questionable; 3) Parallel narrative - woman-centred experience – for pregnant women social factors such as the place of birth and partner influences were as or more important than considerations of clinical risk yet were often missed by HCPs; 4) Cross cutting narrative - genuine dialogue - we observed variably effective interaction between the clinical (2) and patient (3) narratives influenced by trust and empathy and explicit empowering language by HCPs.

Conclusion

We found that ante-natal consultations that include consent for interventions are dominated by clinical framing and risk, and explore the woman-centred narrative less well. Current UK law requires consent consultations to include explicit effort to gauge a woman’s preferences and values, yet consultations seem to fail to achieve such understanding. At the very least, consultations may be improved by the addition of opening questions along the lines of ‘what matters to you most?’
Literature
1.
go back to reference General Medical Council. Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. Manchester: General Medical Council; 2008. General Medical Council. Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. Manchester: General Medical Council; 2008.
2.
go back to reference Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. 2015; UKSC 11 issued by UK Supreme Court. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. 2015; UKSC 11 issued by UK Supreme Court.
3.
4.
go back to reference FM (by his father and litigation friend GM) v Ipswich Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. 2015; EWCH 775. FM (by his father and litigation friend GM) v Ipswich Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. 2015; EWCH 775.
5.
go back to reference Webster v Burton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 2017; EWCA Civ 62. Webster v Burton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 2017; EWCA Civ 62.
6.
7.
go back to reference Diamond v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 585. Diamond v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 585.
8.
go back to reference Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 2018 EWCA Civ 1307. Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 2018 EWCA Civ 1307.
9.
go back to reference Nicholls JA, David AD, Iskaros JI, Lanceley A. Consent in pregnancy: a qualitative study of the views and experiences of women and their healthcare professionals. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019: 238 132–137. Nicholls JA, David AD, Iskaros JI, Lanceley A. Consent in pregnancy: a qualitative study of the views and experiences of women and their healthcare professionals. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019: 238 132–137.
10.
go back to reference Harrison N, Hewitt H, Pandya P, Reisel D. How Montgomery is reconfiguring consent in the UK. Lancet. 2018;392(10142):102–4.CrossRef Harrison N, Hewitt H, Pandya P, Reisel D. How Montgomery is reconfiguring consent in the UK. Lancet. 2018;392(10142):102–4.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Chenail RJ. Getting specific about qualitative research generalisability. J Ethnographic Qual Res. 2010;5(1):1–11. Chenail RJ. Getting specific about qualitative research generalisability. J Ethnographic Qual Res. 2010;5(1):1–11.
12.
go back to reference Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig C. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32 item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRef Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig C. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32 item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Brewer J. Ethnography Open University press; 2000. Brewer J. Ethnography Open University press; 2000.
14.
go back to reference Spradley JP. Participant observation New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston; 1980. Spradley JP. Participant observation New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston; 1980.
15.
go back to reference Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Sl R. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multidisciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:117.CrossRef Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Sl R. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multidisciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:117.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc Sci Med. 2000:1087–110. Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc Sci Med. 2000:1087–110.
18.
go back to reference Mischler E. The discourse of medicine: dialectics of medical interviews. New Jersey: Ablex; 1984. Mischler E. The discourse of medicine: dialectics of medical interviews. New Jersey: Ablex; 1984.
19.
go back to reference Klein MC, Liston R, Fraser WD, Baradaran N, Hearps SJ, Tomkinson J, et al. Birth. 2011;38(2):129–39. Klein MC, Liston R, Fraser WD, Baradaran N, Hearps SJ, Tomkinson J, et al. Birth. 2011;38(2):129–39.
20.
go back to reference Joffe S, Manocchia M, Weeks JC, Cleary PD. What do patients value in their hospital care? An empirical perspective on autonomy centred bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2003;29:103–8.CrossRef Joffe S, Manocchia M, Weeks JC, Cleary PD. What do patients value in their hospital care? An empirical perspective on autonomy centred bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2003;29:103–8.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hassell v Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 2018 EWHC 164 (QB). Hassell v Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 2018 EWHC 164 (QB).
22.
go back to reference Bayley v George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust 2017 EWHC 3398 (QB). Bayley v George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust 2017 EWHC 3398 (QB).
23.
go back to reference Malik M, Awonuga AO, Iglesia CB. Informed consent for vaginal delivery: is it time to revisit the shared decision-making process. J Reprod Med. 2016;61(3–4):153–8.PubMed Malik M, Awonuga AO, Iglesia CB. Informed consent for vaginal delivery: is it time to revisit the shared decision-making process. J Reprod Med. 2016;61(3–4):153–8.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Consent in pregnancy - an observational study of ante-natal care in the context of Montgomery: all about risk?
Authors
Jacqueline A. Nicholls
Anna L. David
Joseph Iskaros
Dimitrios Siassakos
Anne Lanceley
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03574-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2021 Go to the issue