Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1/2013

01-01-2013 | General Gynecology

Consent for gynaecological procedure: what do women understand and remember?

Authors: Sonu Pathak, Modupe Odumosu, Syzana Peja, Katrina Mcintyre, Dan Selo-Ojeme

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine patients’ understanding and recall of consent information and risks associated with their procedure following gynaecological surgery.

Method

Patients planned for routine gynaecological surgery were invited to participate in the study by completing a self-administered questionnaire 4–6 h after day-surgery and 24 h after in-patient surgery. Collated data were analysed using standard statistical methods.

Result

544 women participated in the study. 321 (57.9 %) were day-cases and 233 (42.1 %) were in-patients. 33 % and 30.8 % of in-patients and day-cases, respectively did not recall any risk associated with their procedure. Among in-patients, women who did not recall any risk were less likely to have post primary education (84.2 vs. 96.2 %, P = 0.008), understood an information leaflet (79.5 vs. 95.1 %, P = 0.002), understood the consent counselling (85.5 vs. 98 %, P = 0.001), or remember the explanation of procedure and risks (85.5 vs. 98 %, P = 0.001). Among women who did not recall any risk, the day-case women were less likely to have read the information leaflet (86.4 vs. 96.2 %, P = 0.002), understood the information leaflet (79.5 vs. 98.9 %, P = 0.007), or understood the consent counselling (85.5 vs. 98.9 %, P < 0.001) when compared to in-patients.

Conclusion

A third of women who had planned gynaecology procedure do not recall any risk associated with the procedure. Provision of information leaflet did not make any consistent difference.
Literature
5.
go back to reference Cassileth BR, Zupkie RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V (1980) Informed consent-why are its goals imperfectly realized? N Engl J Med 302:896–900PubMedCrossRef Cassileth BR, Zupkie RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V (1980) Informed consent-why are its goals imperfectly realized? N Engl J Med 302:896–900PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hekkenberg RJ, Irish JC, Rotstein LE, Brown DH, Gullane PJ (1997) Informed consent in head and neck surgery: how much do patients actually remember? J Otolaryngol 26:155–159PubMed Hekkenberg RJ, Irish JC, Rotstein LE, Brown DH, Gullane PJ (1997) Informed consent in head and neck surgery: how much do patients actually remember? J Otolaryngol 26:155–159PubMed
7.
8.
go back to reference Leeb D, Bowers DG, Lynch JB (1976) Observations on the myth of `informed consent’. Plast Reconstr Surg 58:280–282PubMedCrossRef Leeb D, Bowers DG, Lynch JB (1976) Observations on the myth of `informed consent’. Plast Reconstr Surg 58:280–282PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Touqmatchi D, Boret T, Nicopoullous J (2010) The quality of operative consenting against RCOG advice as standard. J Obstet Gynaecol 30(2):59–165CrossRef Touqmatchi D, Boret T, Nicopoullous J (2010) The quality of operative consenting against RCOG advice as standard. J Obstet Gynaecol 30(2):59–165CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Langdon IJ, Hardin R, Learmonth ID (2002) Informed consent for total hip arthroplasty: does a written information sheet improve recall by patients? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 84:404–408PubMedCrossRef Langdon IJ, Hardin R, Learmonth ID (2002) Informed consent for total hip arthroplasty: does a written information sheet improve recall by patients? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 84:404–408PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hopper KD, Lambe HA, Shirk SJ (1993) Readability of informed consent forms for use with iodinated contrast media. Radiology 187:279–283PubMed Hopper KD, Lambe HA, Shirk SJ (1993) Readability of informed consent forms for use with iodinated contrast media. Radiology 187:279–283PubMed
12.
go back to reference Lavelle-Jones C, Byrne DJ, Rice P, Cuschieri A (1993) Factors affecting quality of informed consent. BMJ 306:885–890PubMedCrossRef Lavelle-Jones C, Byrne DJ, Rice P, Cuschieri A (1993) Factors affecting quality of informed consent. BMJ 306:885–890PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Simes RJ, Tattersall NHN, Coates AS, Raghavan D, Solomon HJ, Smartt H (1986) Randomised comparison of procedures for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials of treatment for cancer. Br Med J 293:1065–1068CrossRef Simes RJ, Tattersall NHN, Coates AS, Raghavan D, Solomon HJ, Smartt H (1986) Randomised comparison of procedures for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials of treatment for cancer. Br Med J 293:1065–1068CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Singer PA, Choudry S, Armstrong J (1993) Public opinion regarding consent to treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc 41:112–116PubMed Singer PA, Choudry S, Armstrong J (1993) Public opinion regarding consent to treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc 41:112–116PubMed
15.
go back to reference Krupp W, Spanehl O, Laubach W, Seifert V (2000) Informed Consent in Neurosurgery: patients’ recall of preoperative discussion. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 142:233–239CrossRef Krupp W, Spanehl O, Laubach W, Seifert V (2000) Informed Consent in Neurosurgery: patients’ recall of preoperative discussion. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 142:233–239CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Priluck IA, Robertson DM, Buettner H (1979) What patients recall of the preoperative discussion after retinal detachment surgery. Am J Opthalmol 87:620–623 Priluck IA, Robertson DM, Buettner H (1979) What patients recall of the preoperative discussion after retinal detachment surgery. Am J Opthalmol 87:620–623
17.
go back to reference Shurnas PS, Coughlin MJ (2003) Recall of the risks of forefoot surgery after informed consent. Foot Ankle Int 24:904–908PubMed Shurnas PS, Coughlin MJ (2003) Recall of the risks of forefoot surgery after informed consent. Foot Ankle Int 24:904–908PubMed
18.
go back to reference Mauffrey C, Prempeh EM, John J, Vasario G (2008) The influence of written information during the consenting process on patients’ recall of operative risks. A prospective randomised study. Int Orthop 32:425–429PubMedCrossRef Mauffrey C, Prempeh EM, John J, Vasario G (2008) The influence of written information during the consenting process on patients’ recall of operative risks. A prospective randomised study. Int Orthop 32:425–429PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Consent for gynaecological procedure: what do women understand and remember?
Authors
Sonu Pathak
Modupe Odumosu
Syzana Peja
Katrina Mcintyre
Dan Selo-Ojeme
Publication date
01-01-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2518-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1/2013 Go to the issue