Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 12/2008

01-12-2008

What a signature adds to the consent process

Authors: Peter Neary, Ronan A. Cahill, W. O. Kirwan, E. Kiely, H. P. Redmond

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 12/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

“Consent is a process by which a patient is informed and becomes a participant in decisions regarding their medical management.” It is argued, however, that providing a signature to a form adds little to the quality of this process.

Methods

Views regarding the consent ritual of nonselected patients undergoing endoscopy (cystoscopy or sigmoidoscopy) were prospectively studied together with those of the attending staff. Patient volunteers were randomly assigned to one of two groups and given verbal explanation before the procedure, either alone (group A) or with a request to sign a form in addition (group B). A standardized questionnaire regarding preferences then was applied.

Results

A total of 37 patients (22 men) were studied along with seven staff members. Most surveyed felt that signing a consent form helped to empower the patient (group A, 84%; group B, 83%; staff, 100%). Although the patients mainly believed that it functioned primarily to protect the hospital and doctor (group A, 89%; group B, 67%), only one patient (3% of total) felt that such a formality undermined the patient–doctor relationship. Most staff members favored signing a form (86%). The majority of patients either favored it (group A, 47%; group B, 78%) or expressed no strong preference (group A, 32%; group B, 11%). Interestingly, more women than men preferred signing (73 vs. 55%; p = 0.25), perhaps because more women believed that it functioned to preserve autonomy (93 vs. 77% of men). Age was no particular determinant of perspective.

Conclusion

Although it may be viewed as primarily serving to protect the doctor and hospital, the formal process of signing written consent forms appeals to patients and staff.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Denis B, Bottlaender J, Goineau J, Peter A, Weiss AM (2002) Informed consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a patient opinion survey. Gastroentérol Clin Biol 26:675–679PubMed Denis B, Bottlaender J, Goineau J, Peter A, Weiss AM (2002) Informed consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a patient opinion survey. Gastroentérol Clin Biol 26:675–679PubMed
3.
go back to reference Worthington R (2002) Clinical issues on consent: some philosophical concerns. J Med Ethics 28:377–380PubMedCrossRef Worthington R (2002) Clinical issues on consent: some philosophical concerns. J Med Ethics 28:377–380PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Habiba M, Jackson C, Akkad A, Kenyon S, Dixon-Woods M (2004) Women’s accounts of consenting to surgery: is consent a quality problem? Qual Saf Health Care 13:422–427PubMedCrossRef Habiba M, Jackson C, Akkad A, Kenyon S, Dixon-Woods M (2004) Women’s accounts of consenting to surgery: is consent a quality problem? Qual Saf Health Care 13:422–427PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Sargos P, Pellerin D, Glorion B (1998) Patient education by the surgeon: judicial aspects, ethical aspects, deontological aspects. Chirurgie 123:85–95PubMedCrossRef Sargos P, Pellerin D, Glorion B (1998) Patient education by the surgeon: judicial aspects, ethical aspects, deontological aspects. Chirurgie 123:85–95PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Rouge-Maillart C, Tuech JJ, Pessaux P, Riche P, Penneau M (2001) Patient information management in the beginning of the 21st century. Presse Med 30:68–72PubMed Rouge-Maillart C, Tuech JJ, Pessaux P, Riche P, Penneau M (2001) Patient information management in the beginning of the 21st century. Presse Med 30:68–72PubMed
8.
go back to reference Roque I, Hochain P, Merle V, Lerebours E, Hecketseiler P, Ducrotte P (2003) Assessment of the quality and psychological impact of information delivered using official consent forms in digestive endoscopy. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 27:17–21PubMed Roque I, Hochain P, Merle V, Lerebours E, Hecketseiler P, Ducrotte P (2003) Assessment of the quality and psychological impact of information delivered using official consent forms in digestive endoscopy. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 27:17–21PubMed
9.
go back to reference Akkad A, Jackson C, Kenyon S, Dixon-Woods M, Taub N, Habiba M (2004) Informed consent for elective and emergency surgery: questionnaire study. Brit J Obstet Gynaec 111:1133–1138 Akkad A, Jackson C, Kenyon S, Dixon-Woods M, Taub N, Habiba M (2004) Informed consent for elective and emergency surgery: questionnaire study. Brit J Obstet Gynaec 111:1133–1138
10.
go back to reference Agård A, Hermerén G, Herlitz J (2001) 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 86:632–637PubMedCrossRef Agård A, Hermerén G, Herlitz J (2001) 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 86:632–637PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Williams BF, French JK, White HD, HERO-2 Consent Substudy Investigators (2003) Informed consent during the clinical emergency of acute myocardial infarction (HERO-2 consent substudy): a prospective observational study. Lancet 361:918–922PubMedCrossRef Williams BF, French JK, White HD, HERO-2 Consent Substudy Investigators (2003) Informed consent during the clinical emergency of acute myocardial infarction (HERO-2 consent substudy): a prospective observational study. Lancet 361:918–922PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Agård A, Herlitz J, Hermerén G (2004) Obtaining informed consent from patients in the early phase of acute myocardial infarction: physicians’ experiences and attitudes. Heart 90:208–210PubMedCrossRef Agård A, Herlitz J, Hermerén G (2004) Obtaining informed consent from patients in the early phase of acute myocardial infarction: physicians’ experiences and attitudes. Heart 90:208–210PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Akkad A, Jackson C, Kenyon S, Dixon-Woods M, Taub N, Habiba M (2006) Patients’ perceptions of written consent: questionnaire study. BMJ 333:528PubMedCrossRef Akkad A, Jackson C, Kenyon S, Dixon-Woods M, Taub N, Habiba M (2006) Patients’ perceptions of written consent: questionnaire study. BMJ 333:528PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Carter CA, Ruhe MC, Weyer S, Litaker D, Fry RE, Stange KC (2007) An appreciative inquiry approach to practice improvement and transformative change in health care settings. Qual Manag Health Care 16:194–204PubMed Carter CA, Ruhe MC, Weyer S, Litaker D, Fry RE, Stange KC (2007) An appreciative inquiry approach to practice improvement and transformative change in health care settings. Qual Manag Health Care 16:194–204PubMed
16.
go back to reference Triantafyllou K, Stanciu C, Kruse A, Malfertheiner P, Axon A, Ladas SD (2002) European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Informed consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a 2002 ESGE survey. Dig Dis 20:280–283PubMedCrossRef Triantafyllou K, Stanciu C, Kruse A, Malfertheiner P, Axon A, Ladas SD (2002) European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Informed consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a 2002 ESGE survey. Dig Dis 20:280–283PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Parmar VN, Mayberry JF (2005) An audit of informed consent in gastroscopy: investigation of a hospital’s informed consent procedure in endoscopy by assessing current practice. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:721–724PubMedCrossRef Parmar VN, Mayberry JF (2005) An audit of informed consent in gastroscopy: investigation of a hospital’s informed consent procedure in endoscopy by assessing current practice. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:721–724PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bassi A, Brown E, Kapoor N, Bodger K (2002) Dissatisfaction with consent for diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. Dig Dis 20:275–279PubMedCrossRef Bassi A, Brown E, Kapoor N, Bodger K (2002) Dissatisfaction with consent for diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. Dig Dis 20:275–279PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mills S, Law Society of Ireland (2005) Consent to medical treatment: medical law and litigation. Lecture 4, Blackhall Place, Dublin, Ireland Mills S, Law Society of Ireland (2005) Consent to medical treatment: medical law and litigation. Lecture 4, Blackhall Place, Dublin, Ireland
20.
go back to reference Watkins EJ, Milligan LJ, O’Beirne HA (2001) Information and consent for anaesthesia: a postal survey of current practice in Great Britain. Anaesthesia 56:879–882PubMedCrossRef Watkins EJ, Milligan LJ, O’Beirne HA (2001) Information and consent for anaesthesia: a postal survey of current practice in Great Britain. Anaesthesia 56:879–882PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference O’Dwyer HM, Lyon SM, Fotheringham T, Lee MJ (2003) Informed consent for interventional radiology procedures: a survey detailing current European practice. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 26:428–433PubMedCrossRef O’Dwyer HM, Lyon SM, Fotheringham T, Lee MJ (2003) Informed consent for interventional radiology procedures: a survey detailing current European practice. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 26:428–433PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Kerrigan DD, Thevasagayam RS, Woods TO, Mc Welch I, Thomas WE, Shorthouse AJ, Dennison AR (1993) Who’s afraid of informed consent? BMJ 306:298–300PubMedCrossRef Kerrigan DD, Thevasagayam RS, Woods TO, Mc Welch I, Thomas WE, Shorthouse AJ, Dennison AR (1993) Who’s afraid of informed consent? BMJ 306:298–300PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Hoehner PJ (2003) Ethical aspects of informed consent in obstetric anesthesia: new challenges and solutions. J Clin Anesth 15:587–600PubMedCrossRef Hoehner PJ (2003) Ethical aspects of informed consent in obstetric anesthesia: new challenges and solutions. J Clin Anesth 15:587–600PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Burger I, Schill K, Goodman S (2007) Disclosure of individual surgeon’s performance rates during informed consent: ethical and epistemological considerations. Ann Surg 245:507–513PubMedCrossRef Burger I, Schill K, Goodman S (2007) Disclosure of individual surgeon’s performance rates during informed consent: ethical and epistemological considerations. Ann Surg 245:507–513PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Williams CJ, Zwitter M (1994) Informed consent in European multicentre randomised clinical trials: are patients really informed? Eur J Cancer 30:907–910CrossRef Williams CJ, Zwitter M (1994) Informed consent in European multicentre randomised clinical trials: are patients really informed? Eur J Cancer 30:907–910CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC (2001) Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 358:1772–1777PubMedCrossRef Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC (2001) Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 358:1772–1777PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Barata PC, Gucciardi E, Ahmad F, Stewart DE (2006) Cross-cultural perspectives on research participation and informed consent. Soc Sci Med 62:479–490PubMedCrossRef Barata PC, Gucciardi E, Ahmad F, Stewart DE (2006) Cross-cultural perspectives on research participation and informed consent. Soc Sci Med 62:479–490PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Molyneux CS, Peshu N, Marsh K (2005) Trust and informed consent: insights from community members on the Kenyan coast. Soc Sci Med 61:1463–1473PubMedCrossRef Molyneux CS, Peshu N, Marsh K (2005) Trust and informed consent: insights from community members on the Kenyan coast. Soc Sci Med 61:1463–1473PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Allmark P, Mason S (2006) Improving the quality of consent to randomised controlled trials by using continuous consent and clinician training in the consent process. J Med Ethics 32:439–443PubMedCrossRef Allmark P, Mason S (2006) Improving the quality of consent to randomised controlled trials by using continuous consent and clinician training in the consent process. J Med Ethics 32:439–443PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Saleh GM, Patel JI, Sivaprasad S, Tsesmetzoglou E, Fietje N, Saleh NM (2007) Digital Voice Signature: the future of consent? Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 35:297PubMedCrossRef Saleh GM, Patel JI, Sivaprasad S, Tsesmetzoglou E, Fietje N, Saleh NM (2007) Digital Voice Signature: the future of consent? Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 35:297PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Benbassat J, Pilpel D, Tidhar M (1998) Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. Behav Med 24:81–88PubMedCrossRef Benbassat J, Pilpel D, Tidhar M (1998) Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. Behav Med 24:81–88PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA (2005) Not all patients want to participate in decision making: a national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med 20:531–535PubMedCrossRef Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA (2005) Not all patients want to participate in decision making: a national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med 20:531–535PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Berry MG, Unwin J, Ross GL, Peacock E, Juma A (2007) A comparison of the views of patients and medical staff in relation to the process of informed consent. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 89:368–367PubMedCrossRef Berry MG, Unwin J, Ross GL, Peacock E, Juma A (2007) A comparison of the views of patients and medical staff in relation to the process of informed consent. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 89:368–367PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
What a signature adds to the consent process
Authors
Peter Neary
Ronan A. Cahill
W. O. Kirwan
E. Kiely
H. P. Redmond
Publication date
01-12-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 12/2008
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9874-3

Other articles of this Issue 12/2008

Surgical Endoscopy 12/2008 Go to the issue