Do we achieve the Montgomery standard for consent in orthopaedic surgery?

被引:8
作者
Tonge, Xenia N. [1 ]
Crouch-Smith, Henry [2 ]
Bhalaik, Vijay [1 ,2 ]
Harrison, William D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Hlth Educ England, North West Deanery Mersey Sect, London, England
[2] Wirral Univ Hosp Trust, Trauma & Orthopaed Dept, Wirral, Merseyside, England
关键词
Consent; Elective surgery; Medicolegal; Montgomery; Orthopaedic surgery; Quality improvement; Surgery; Trauma and orthopaedics;
D O I
10.12968/hmed.2020.0504
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Aims/Background The Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) case set a precedent that has driven the modernisation of consenting practice. Failure to demonstrate informed consent is a common source of litigation. This quality improvement project aimed to provide pragmatic guidance for surgeons on consent and to improve the patient experience during decision making. Methods Elective orthopaedic patients were assessed and the quality of documented consent was recorded. Data were collected over two discrete cycles, with cycle 1 used as a baseline in practice. The following criteria were reviewed: grade of consenting clinician, alternative treatment options, description of specific risks, place and timing of consent and whether the patient received written information or a copied clinic letter. Cycle 1 results were presented to clinicians; a teaching session was provided for clinicians on the standard of consent expected and implementation of a change in practice was established with a re-audit in cycle 2. Results There were 111 patients included in cycle 1, and 96 patients in cycle 2. Consent was undertaken mostly by consultants (54%). Specific patient risks were documented in 50% of patients in cycle 1 and 60% in cycle 2. Risks associated with a specific procedure were documented in 42% in cycle 1 and 76% in cycle 2, alternative options in 48% (cycle 1) and 66% (cycle 2). A total of 14% of patients in cycle 1 and 8% in cycle 2 had documented written information provision. Copied letters to patients was only seen in 12% of all cycles. Documentation from dedicated consenting clinics outperformed standard clinics. Conclusions Highlighting poor documentation habits and refining departmental education can lead to improvements in practice. The use of consenting clinics should be considered and clinicians should individually reflect on how to address their own shortcomings. Other units should strongly consider a similar audit. This article provides stepwise advice to improve consent and specifics from which to audit.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 10 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], MONTGOMERY LANARKSHI
[2]  
[Anonymous], THEFAULT JOHNSTON EW
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2013, GOOD PRACTICE SOURCE
[4]   The cost of consent: why healthcare providers must be compliant with the Montgomery principles [J].
Birch, N. ;
Todd, N., V .
BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2020, 102B (05) :550-555
[5]   Changes to the law on consent following Montgomery vs Lanarkshire Health Board [J].
Clearkin, Louis .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, 2016, 77 (06) :355-357
[6]   Improving the Consent Process in Foot and Ankle Surgery With the Use of Personalized Patient Literature [J].
Howard, Nicholas ;
Cowan, Christopher ;
Ahluwalia, Raju ;
Wright, Andrew ;
Hennessy, Michael ;
Jackson, Gillian ;
Platt, Simon .
JOURNAL OF FOOT & ANKLE SURGERY, 2018, 57 (01) :81-85
[7]   The 'three-legged stool' A SYSTEM FOR SPINAL INFORMED CONSENT [J].
Powell, J. M. ;
Rai, A. ;
Foy, M. ;
Casey, A. ;
Dabke, H. ;
Gibson, A. ;
Hutton, M. .
BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2016, 98B (11) :1427-1430
[8]  
Royal College of Surgeons, 2016, CONSENT SUPPORTED DE
[9]   Defending the sophisticated consent attack What can doctors do to protect themselves against allegations that they failed when obtaining consent to ensure that the patient understood information? [J].
Sokol, Daniel K. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 349
[10]   "Time and space". a further development in consent for elective spinal neurosurgery [J].
Todd, Nicholas V. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 32 (01) :75-76