Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Medicine

formerly Central European Journal of Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Darzynkiewicz, Zbigniew


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.221

CiteScore 2018: 1.01

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.329
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.479

ICV 2018: 156.09

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2391-5463
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 7, Issue 2

Issues

Volume 10 (2015)

Effectiveness of consenting in Otorhinolaryngology

Nnaemeka Okpala / Amala Okpala / Gareth John / Hugh Cox
Published Online: 2012-02-03 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-011-0131-0

Abstract

Informed consent in today’s medical practice has become a cornerstone and a routine ethical component playing a major role in forming a therapeutic alliance with the patient. The present study sought to analyse the effectiveness of the consent forms and the consenting process in Otorhinolaryngology. This three month questionnaire-based study covered varying operations which ranged from tonsillectomies, grommet insertions to pharyngeal pouch stapling. Twenty-nine percent of consent forms were signed on the day of the operation. Of the patients who received leaflets (51%) during the process of informed consent, a majority (88%) found it useful. The respondents were satisfied with the explanation of the procedure, benefits and complications (70–74%). Majority kept their consent forms at home (60%) and did not bother engaging in further search with regards to the information in the consent form (81%). Majority of the patients agreed that they had enough time to make an informed consent. Patients were satisfied with the consent process but more can be done to improve the consenting process.

Keywords: Ear; Nose and Throat (ENT); Informed consent; Consenting; Surgery

  • [1] Hoehner PJ. Ethical aspects of informed consent in obstetric anesthesia — new challenges and solutions. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 2003;15(8): 58–600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8180(02)00505-6CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [2] Jones JW, McCullough LW, Richman BW. Informed Consent: Its Not Just Signing a Form. Thoracic Surgery Clinics 2005;15(4): 451–460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.thorsurg.2005.06.001CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [3] General Medical Council (1998). Seeking Patients’ Consent: The Ethical Considerations. London: GMC Google Scholar

  • [4] Hopper KD, TenHave TR, Tully DA, Hall TE. The readability of currently used surgical / procedure consent forms in the United States. Surgery. 1998 May; 123(5):496–503 http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/msy.1998.87236CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [5] Langdon IJ, Hardin R, Learmonth ID. Informed consent for total hip arthroplasty: does a written information sheet improve recall by patients? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2002; 84: 404–408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/003588402760978201CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [6] Adachi H. Informed consent in cardiovascular surgery. Kyobu Geka 2008 Mar; 61(3): 231–237 PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [7] Glock RS, Goldim JR. Informed consent in gerontology. Eubios J Asian Int Bioeth. 2003 Jan;13(1):6–8 Google Scholar

  • [8] Nichols CM, Pendlebury LC, Jennell J. Chart documentation of informed consent for operative vaginal delivery: Is it adequate? South Med J. 2006; 99(12):133–9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.smj.0000243076.86803.09CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9] Chappell D, Taylor C. A survey of the consent practices of specialist orthodontics practitioners in the North-West of England. J Orthod. 2007 Mar; 34(1): 36–45 http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/146531207225021897CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [10] Wiseman OJ, Wijewardena M, Calleary J, Masood J, Hill JT. ’Will you be doing my operation doctor?’ Patient attitudes to informed consent. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004; 86: 462–464 http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/1478708041109CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [11] Philipson SJ, Doyle MA, Gabram SG, Nightingale C, Philipson EH. Informed consent for research: a study to evaluate readability and processability to effect change. J Investig Med. 1995 Oct;43(5):459–67 Google Scholar

  • [12] Mallardi V. The origin of informed consent. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312–27 PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [13] Ibrahim T, Ong SM, Taylor GJS-C. The new consent form: is it any better. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004; 86:206–209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/003588404323043364CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [14] Goodyear PW, Anderson AR, Kelly G. How informed is consent in a modern ENT department. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008 Aug; 265(8):95–61 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0638-4CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [15] Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? The American Journal of Surgery. 2009; 198(3): 420–435 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.02.010CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [16] Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2009 May; 9(5):485–93 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70128-1Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [17] Campbell B. New consent forms issued by the Department of Health. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004 Nov; 86(6): 457–458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/1478708041082CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [18] Berry NH, Phillips JS, Salam MA. Written Consent — A Prospective Audit of Practices for ENT Patients. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008 March; 90(2): 150–152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/003588408X261564CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2012-02-03

Published in Print: 2012-04-01


Citation Information: Open Medicine, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 198–202, ISSN (Online) 2391-5463, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-011-0131-0.

Export Citation

© 2011 Versita Warsaw. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in