Are patients informed when they consent to ERCP?

被引:16
作者
O'Sullivan, S [1 ]
Crippen, C [1 ]
Ponich, T [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Ontario, Div Gastroenterol, London, ON, Canada
关键词
endoscopic retrograde; cholangiopancreatograpy; informed consent; litigation;
D O I
10.1155/2002/573627
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Only the British Society of Gastroenterology has published consent guidelines that are inclusive fur endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (FRCP). Previous research has shown that there are variations in the information discussed with patients who are undergoing ERCP. Purpose: To examine the informed consent practices for FRCP in Ontario. Methods: A self-report questionnaire was sent to ERCP endoscopists in Ontario, who were identified through a pre-existing database. The 14-item questionnaire included questions pertaining to the risks, benefits and alternatives discussed, how consent was obtained and whether the consent process was modified fur patients older than 75 years. Results: Of the 82 surveys sent, 36 responses were received, with three respondents indicating that they no longer performed ERCP; the total response rate was 40%. Ninety-four per cent of those who responded noted that they obtained written consent, and 6% obtained verbal consent. When discussing risks with their patient,, 91% of respondent always mentioned pancreatitis, 88% always mentioned bleeding, 73% always mentioned perforation and 30% always mentioned the risk of infection; only 24% always mentioned the possibility of being allergic to the contrast agent, and 73% rarely or never mentioned death. When dealing with patients older than 75 years, 38% of respondents tended to be more brief in their explanations, 31% gave the same details in their explanation and 31% gave more detailed information than they gave to younger patients. Seventy-nine per cent mentioned the possibility of diagnostic failure and 82% mentioned the possibility of therapeutic failure, while only 27% mentioned the possibility of missing a diagnosis. Conclusions: Variability exists in terms of 'important information' given to patients undergoing ERCP. Standard informed consent guidelines specific to FRCP may help endoscopists uphold their responsibility to the patient, enhance patient understanding and reduce the risk of liability.
引用
收藏
页码:154 / 158
页数:5
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2000, Gastrointest Endosc, V52, P827
[2]  
ASGE, 1999, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V50, P910
[3]  
*BRIT SOC GASTR, 1999, GUID INF CONS END PR
[4]  
*CAN ASS GASTR, 1997, INF CONS GUID GASTR
[5]  
*CAN MED PROT ASS, 1996, CONS GUID CAN PHYS, P11
[6]   Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy [J].
Freeman, ML ;
Nelson, DB ;
Sherman, S ;
Haber, GB ;
Herman, ME ;
Dorsher, PJ ;
Moore, JP ;
Fennerty, MB ;
Ryan, ME ;
Shaw, MJ ;
Lande, JD ;
Pheley, AM .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1996, 335 (13) :909-918
[7]  
Gostout CJ, 2000, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V95, P590
[8]  
Kirsch M, 2000, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V95, P588
[9]   Reducing risks in gastroenterological practice [J].
Neale, G .
GUT, 1998, 42 (01) :139-142
[10]   Informed consent [J].
Neale, G .
GUT, 2000, 46 (01) :5-6