Informed consent refers to a voluntary decision and an authorization by a patient that a health care provider can proceed with diagnostic or therapeutic interventions as planned during the consent discussion. An integral component of the consent process, the consent discussion, is structured around the essential points of the procedure, associated side effects, reasonably predictable risks, benefits, and outcomes, as well as other treatment options .
Informed consent is now ethically and legally ensconced as the right of patients to receive adequate information to make decisions about proposed treatment and currently available alternative options in medical care . This is a relatively recent concept in some areas of medicine, and reflects the gradual shift away from the paternalistic approach predominant up until the early 1960s when doctors believed that, by virtue of their superior medical knowledge, they could disregard patients’ choices and preferences or act against them if they ran counter to clinical indications. Surveys assessing health literacy in adults have found, however, that many people have a poor grasp of basic health concepts, medical information and instructions.
Other studies have shown that patients often have trouble to follow an explanation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures discussed during the consent consultation  and are able to recall little of what was explained . Because surgical informed consent forms are complex for patients to read and understand, we created a two-page consent document with key information presented in bulleted texts and diagrams combined in a graphical format to facilitate understanding during the verbal consent process for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Factors potentially affecting comprehension, as assessed with a feedback questionnaire, were analyzed.
2 Material and methods
2.1 Study sample
In this prospective randomized study, 100 consecutive patients awaiting elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstones on a day surgery basis were enrolled between 1 April 2013 and 1 April 2015. Exclusion criteria were: incapacity to read and understand the informed consent form unaided, emergency surgery, need for other surgical procedures in addition to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, refusal to participate in the study, non-Italian speakers or patients noted to have difficulty understanding or communicating in Italian, severe mental disorders, and incapacity to provide adequate informed consent. A single physician and member of the medical team collected the consent forms from all enrolled patients before hospital admission for surgery.
Of these 100 patients, 18 were excluded because they had undergone emergency surgery during the time between informed consent collection and the scheduled date of elective surgery; 12 others were excluded because they met one of the exclusion criteria listed above. The 70 remaining patients were assigned to one of two groups according to a computer-generated sequence (available at http://www.randomization.com). Of these 70 participants, 33 (47%) were men and 37 were women (52.9%). The median age was 55 years (range, 24-80); 37 (52.9%) patients were below and 33 (47.1%) were above the median age. The study group included 33 (47.1%) patients and the control group 37 (52.9%). The demographic characteristics were similar in both groups (Table 1).
2.2 Informed consent discussion
The informed consent discussion during surgical preadmission assessment covered the essential points regarding the pathology and its natural history, clinical course and common complications associated with gallstones, the reason for laparoscopic surgery and related risks and benefits, details about the surgical procedure, the potential surgical risks and reasonably predictable complications, the postoperative course, the diet to be followed during the first month after surgery, and aftercare of the surgical wound. Consent was obtained after the exposure to standard verbal explanation with either a simplified informed consent form (study group) or a standard text document (control group) routinely used in our unit for this purpose. The simplified consent form featured a clear layout and visual design elements, including ample margins and white space, short bulleted lists with topic headings, both medical and lay terms, anatomical diagrams and figures with descriptions and captions, and institutional logo (Fig. 1). Neither informed consent form has been tested for readability standards.
2.3 Feedback questionnaire
Comprehension was evaluated with a non-validated, 9-item multiple-choice questionnaire administered the day before surgery. The self-report multiple-choice questionnaire (each of the 9 questions had only one correct answer from 2-4 choices) examined understanding of informed consent regarding the operation itself (questions 1 to 4), potential surgical complications (questions 5 and 6), and length of hospital stay and postoperative care instructions (questions 7 to 9). An additional final question (item 10 had only a yes/no response) investigated patient satisfaction with the clarity of the presentation and the amount of information given (Fig. 2). Physicians that obtained the consent forms also collected completed questionnaires.
Patient age, sex, educational level, time between consent and questionnaire collection, and questionnaire scores were entered into a database for analysis. Eleven (15.7%) patients had completed elementary school, 24 (34.3%) middle school, 10 (14.3%) technical-vocational school, 19 (27.1) high school, and 6 (8.6%) college level education. The average time between consent and collection of the feedback questionnaire was 23.4 days (median 12 days, range 0 to 152); the time interval was less than 15 days for 39 (55.7%) patients and more than 16 days for the remaining 31 (44.3%).
2.4 Statistical analysis
Univariate descriptive analysis was applied to categorical and continuous variables, followed by bivariate descriptive analysis of the categorical variables, interferential analysis of the categorical variables (two-sided Monte Carlo and Fisher’s exact test), and a multivariate binary logistic regression model (odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals). Statistical significance was set at P ≤ 0.05.
The correct response rate was 100% on all 9 questionnaire items for 20 out of 70 patients: 11/33 (33.3%) in the study group and 9/37 (24.3%) in the control group; 23 responded incorrectly to 1 item (11 [33.3%] in the study group vs. 12 [32.4%] in the control group); 17 responded incorrectly to 2 items (7 [21.2%] in the study group vs. 10 [27.1%] in the control group); 8 responded incorrectly to 3 items (3 [9.1%] in the study group vs. 5 [13.5%] in the control group); 2 responded incorrectly to 4 items (1 [3.1%] in the study group vs. 1 [2.7%] in the control group). The percentage of correct responses to the first 5 items investigating understanding of the operation was generally high in both groups: 97% and 100% to item 1, 96.9% and 97.3% to item 2, 93.9% and 94.6% to item 3, 93.9% and 100% to item 4, and 90.9% and 100% to item 5 in the study and the control group, respectively.
By comparison, the correct response rate was lowest for item 6 (probability of surgical complications), with 57.6% and 62.1% in the study and the control group, respectively, responding incorrectly. The correct response rate improved on items 7 to 9 (length of hospital stay and postoperative care instructions): 78.8% vs. 67.6%, 90.9% vs. 75.7%, and 100% vs. 89.2% in the study and the control group, respectively. All patients stated that they were satisfied with the way they were informed and the clarity of the information provided irrespective of whether they had been exposed to verbal consent with the standard text or with the simplified graphically enhanced document (Table 2).
Univariate and bivariate analysis of the categorical variables (age, sex, educational level, time between consent and surgery) showed that none of these were statistically significant as a predictor of understanding consent nor did exposure to the standard text or graphically formatted consent document predict better understanding (Table 3). Multivariate binary logistic regression (odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals) of these variables showed that, independent of type of exposure, educational level had a statistically significant effect on reducing the risk of responding incorrectly by the patients in both groups who had completed high school or college (P = 0.035 and P = 0.043, respectively) (Table 4).
Like the trust that underlies the doctor-patient relationship, informed consent can be viewed as both an event and a process . It begins with the preoperative encounter and continues through to the postoperative evaluation of treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction.
In a questionnaire study, Akkad et al.  found, however, that patients often had a limited understanding of the legal implications of signing an informed consent form and that they did not recognize the fact that informed consent works in their interest: 46% stated that informed consent serves to protect the doctor’s interest. The authors concluded that the current informed consent process is inadequate and its ethical validity and credibility are questionable.
Health literacy surveys have underlined the need to provide medical information in plain language in order to bridge the knowledge gap between doctor and patient. Kusec et al.  reported that the complexity of presenting concepts could be graded according to patient characteristics by aiming for a balanced choice between medical and lay terms adjusted to the patient’s educational level, for example. By the same token, not all patients have a desire of being fully informed about clinical aspects, therapy, common complications, and treatment outcomes.
Degerliyurt et al.  found a wide variability in the amount of information about therapy and potential complications that patients want to know: 57% of the patients in their study stated they wanted to be fully informed about all the complications associated with their surgical treatment, 33% wanted to know only the most common complications, and 10% did not want to be informed. Despite these discrepancies, the authors recommended that patients receive a standard informed consent form.
In a systematic review of the literature, Falagas et al.  found that less than one third of the studies they reviewed reported that patients had adequately understood of the components of the informed consent process. Although the majority of the patients felt that the amount of information they had received was adequate, the actual degree of understanding was suboptimal.
There are now various methods and strategies to simplify consent forms and improve comprehension with the aid of especially designed written or multimedia material being used during the informed consent process in clinical trials. The general agreement is that the use of such materials may increase patient understanding of informed consent [10-16]. Multimedia presentations have been effectively implemented in education to increase learning, interest, memory, comprehension, and satisfaction. Hung et al.  reported that the use of multimedia disclosure of informed consent does not significantly increase hospital costs. Not all authors agree that multimedia use necessarily improves patients’ informed consent understanding, however. Clark et al.  reported that PowerPoint presentations illustrating laparoscopic cholecystectomy did not increase the degree of patient understanding. Other authors have suggested that a consent discussion following a checklist of essential concepts is sufficient to obtain good understanding of consent  or that repeat back of concepts and repetition of the points not clearly understood can also help to improve understanding . What has been consistently shown is that an increased understanding of the surgical procedure can increase satisfaction with treatment received and reduce perioperative anxiety [21-24] despite of the inherent difficulties of surgical procedures [25-44].
In our study, comparison of feedback questionnaire scores revealed no statistically significant difference in informed consent understanding between the two groups. This finding contrasts with previously published data [10-16]. We agree with Clark et al.  and Kondziolka  who demonstrated that the addition of educational material to the standard verbal consent process does not improve patient understanding of the risks and benefits associated with surgery. Like Falagas et al. , we noted that although the majority of patients felt that the amount of information received was adequate, their actual understanding was low: only 28.6% of the patients responded correctly to all 9 questionnaire items, though both groups stated they were satisfied with the clarity with which the information was presented.
Laparoscopic surgery seems to give greater difficulties in intervention explanation perhaps because of technology that can not be understood by all types of patients . [45-57]. Further to this, since the literature is scarce on the effects of simplifying informed consent forms in the clinical setting, we analyzed several variables that might correlate with patient understanding. Age, sex, and time between consent and questionnaire administration were not found to be statistically significant predictors of increased understanding. The only factor that had a statistically significant effect on reducing the risk of responding incorrectly to a questionnaire item was educational level (P = 0.048 on multivariate analysis). This was particularly evident for the patients with a high school (P = 0.035 on multivariate analysis) or college education (P = 0.043 on multivariate analysis) in both groups. This finding is in line with observations by Kusec et al.  and suggests that the complexity of medical information can be appropriately graded in patients with a higher educational level.
That said, we believe that, irrespective of exposure to a standard verbal consent procedures or to a consent process with a simplified, graphically formatted consent document, understanding informed consent is influenced by a patient’s health literacy. Voluntariness and interest in their health condition may help patients retain the concepts discussed with their surgeon during the consent process and prompt them to ask for the information they feel is important when faced with decisions about their health.
Sources of funding
All authors have no source of funding to declare.
Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986 Google Scholar
Ferrarese A., Pozzi G., Borghi F., Pellegrino L., Di Lorenzo P., Amato B., Santangelo M., Niola M., Martino V., Capasso E., Informed consent in robotic surgery: quality of information and patient perception. Open Med. 2016; 11 (1): 279-285 Google Scholar
Chate RAC. An audit of the level of knowledge and understanding of informed consent amongst consultant orthodontists in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Br Dent J 2008; 205:12 Google Scholar
Scheer AS, O’Connor AM, Chan BP et al. The myth of informed consent in rectal cancer surgery: what do patients retain?. Dis Colon Rectum 2012; 55(9):970-975 Google Scholar
Bernat JL, Peterson LM. Patient-Centered Informed Consent in Surgical Practice. Arch Surg 2006; 141:86-92 Google Scholar
Akkad A, Jackson C, Kenyon S et al. Patients’ perceptions of written consent: questionnaire study. BMJ 2006; 333:528 Google Scholar
Kusec S, Oreskovic S, Skegro M. Improving comprehension of informed consent. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 60:294-300 Google Scholar
Degerliyurt K, Laskin DM. Informed Consent: What Do Patients Really Want to Know? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68:1849-52 Google Scholar
Falagas ME, Korbila IP. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg 2009; 198:420-443 Google Scholar
Bollschweiler E, Apitzsch J. Improving Informed Consent of Surgical Patients Using a Multimedia-Based Program? Results of a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study of Patients Before Cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 2008; 248:2 Google Scholar
Tompsett E. Can video aids increase the validity of patient consent? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2012; 32:680-682Google Scholar
Ibrahim T, Meng Ong S. The new consent form: is it any better?. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004; 86:206-209Google Scholar
Wang C, Ammon P, Beischer AD. The use of multimedia as an adjunct to the informed consent process for Morton’s neuroma resection surgery. Foot Ankle Int 2014; 35(10):1037-1044Google Scholar
Batuyong ED, Jowett AJ, Wickramasinghe N et al. Using multimedia to enhance the consent process for bunion correction surgery. ANZ J Surg 2014; 84(4):249-254Google Scholar
Sherlock A, Brownie S. Patients’ recollection and understanding of informed consent: a literature review. ANZ J Surg 2014; 84(4):207-210Google Scholar
Nehme J, El-Khani U, Chow A, et al. The use of multimedia consent programs or surgical procedures: a systematic review. Surg Innov 2013; 20(1):13-23 Google Scholar
Hung S, Huang K. An empirical study of the effectiveness of multimedia disclosure of informed consent: A technology mediated learning perspective. Inf Manage 2011; 48:135-144 Google Scholar
Clark S, Mangram A. The Informed Consent: A Study of the Efficacy of Informed Consents and the Associated Role of Language Barriers. J Surg Educ 2011; 1931-7204 Google Scholar
Kondziolka DS. Improving the informed consent process for surgery. Neurosurgery 2006; 58:1184-1189 Google Scholar
Fink AS, Prochazka AV, Henderson WG, et al. Enhancement of surgical informed consent by addition of repeat back: a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg 2010; 252(1):27-36 Google Scholar
Mulsow JJ, Feeley TM, Tierney S. Beyond consent-improving understanding in surgical patients. Am J Surg 2012; 203(1):112-120 Google Scholar
Betti S, Sironi A, Saino G, et al. Effect of the informed consent process on anxiety and comprehension of patients undergoing esophageal and gastrointestinal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 2011; 15(6):922-927Google Scholar
Moseley TH, Wiggins MN, O’Sullivan P. Effects of presentation method on the understanding of informed consent. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90:990-993Google Scholar
Fink AS, Prochazka AV, Henderson WG, et al. Predictors of comprehension during surgical informed consent. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 210(6):919-926 Google Scholar
Azoulay D, Castaing D, Dennison A et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt worsens the hyperdynamic circulatory state of the cirrhotic patient: preliminary report of a prospective study. Hepatology 1994 Jan; 19(1):129-132 Google Scholar
Pozzi G, Ferrarese A, Busso M et al. Percutaneous drainage and sclerosis of mesenteric cysts: literature overview and report of an innovative approach. Int J Surg 2014; 12 Suppl 2:S90-93Google Scholar
Ferrarese A, Marola S, Surace A et al. Fibrin glue versus stapler fixation in laparoscopic transabdominal inguinal hernia repair: a single center 5-year experience and analysis of the results in the elderly. Int J Surg 2014; 12 Suppl 2:S94-98Google Scholar
Surace A, Marola S, Benvenga R, et al. Difficult abdominal access in laparoscopic cholecystectomy in elderly patients: our experience and literature review. Int J Surg 2014; 12 Suppl 2:S1-3Google Scholar
Polistena A., Di Lorenzo P., Sanguinetti A., Buccelli C., Conzo G., Conti A., Niola M., Avenia N. Medicolegal implications of surgical errors and complications in neck surgery: a review based on the Italian current legislation. Open Med. 2016; 11 (1): 298-306Google Scholar
Gentile V, Ferrarese A, Marola S, et al. Perioperative and postoperative outcomes of perforated diverticulitis Hinchey II and III: open Hartmann’s procedure vs. laparoscopic lavage and drainage in the elderly. Int J Surg 2014; 12 Suppl 2:S86-89Google Scholar
Martino V, Ferrarese A, Borello A et al. An unusual evolution of a case of Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome. Open Med.2015; 10:498-501Google Scholar
Sandrucci S, Garrone C, Mobiglia C et al. Evaluation of the toxicity induced in rat by the intra-arterial cytostatic infusion and by hepatic dearterialization associated with systemic cytostatic therapy. Bollettino e Memorie della Societa Piemontese di Chirurgia 1989; 59(2):65-77Google Scholar
Muzio S, Cassini P, Martino V et al. Transcystic videolaparoscopy for choledocholithiasis with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy. A case report. Chir Ital 2008 Jan-Feb; 60(1):119-123Google Scholar
Serra R, Grande R, Butrico L et al. Effects of a new nutraceutical substance on clinical and molecular parameters in patients with chronic venous ulceration. Int Wound J 2016 Feb; 13(1):88-96Google Scholar
Surace A, Ferrarese A, Benvenga R et al. ACTH-secreting neuroendocrine pancreatic tumor: a case report. Int J Surg 2014; 12 Suppl 1:S222-224Google Scholar
Ferrarese A, Borello A, Gentile V, et al. Meso-pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. Int J Surg 2014; 12 Suppl 1:S123-125Google Scholar
Serra R, Gallelli L, Conti A, et al. The effects of sulodexide on both clinical and molecular parameters in patients with mixed arterial and venous ulcers of lower limbs. Drug Des Devel Ther 2014 May; 13;8:519-527Google Scholar
Priola AM, Priola SM, Volpicelli G, et al. Accuracy of 64-row multidetector CT in the diagnosis of surgically treated acute abdomen. Clin Imaging 2013 Sep-Oct; 37(5):902-907Google Scholar
Ferrarese A, Enrico S, Solej M et al. Laparoscopic management of non-midline incisional hernia: A multicentric study. Int J Surg 2016 Jun 21; pii: S1743-9191(16)30181-9. doi: . [Epub ahead of print]CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Surace A, Ferrarese A, Marola S et al. Endorectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of rectal cancer: accuracy and criticies. Int J Surg 2014; 12 Suppl 2:S99-102Google Scholar
Berti S, Ferrarese A, Feleppa C, et al. Laparoscopic perspectives for distal biliary obstruction. Int J Surg 2015 Sep; 21 Suppl 1:S64-67Google Scholar
Surace A, Ferrarese A, Marola S et al. Abdominal compartment syndrome and open abdomen management with negative pressure devices. Ann Ital Chir. 2015 Jan-Feb; 86(1):46-50Google Scholar
Ferrarese A, Falcone A, Solej M et al. Surgeon’s clinical valuation and accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: A comparison with intraoperative evaluation. Five years experienceGoogle Scholar
Marola S, Ferrarese A, Solej M et al. Management of venous ulcers: State of the art. Int J Surg 2016 Jun 21; in press Google Scholar
Allaix ME, Giraudo G, FerrareseA, et al. 10-Year Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic or Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer. World J Surg 2016 Jul 14; in press Google Scholar
Eretta C, Ferrarese A, Olcese S, et al. Celiac axis compression syndrome: laparoscopic approach in a strange case of Chronic abdominal pain in 71 years old man. Open Med 2016; 11: In pressGoogle Scholar
Nano M, Martino V, Ferrarese A, Falcone A. A brief history of laparoscopy. G Chir 2012; (33); 3:53-57Google Scholar
Martino V, Ferrarese A, Bindi M, et al. Abnormal right hepatic artery injury resulting in right hepatic atrophy: diagnosed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Open Med 2015; 10:535-537Google Scholar
Ferrarese A, Pozzi G, Borghi F, et al. Malfunctions of robotic system in surgery: role and responsibility of surgeon in legal point of view. Open Med 2016; 11: In pressGoogle Scholar
Ferrarese A, Pozzi G, Borghi F, et al. Informed consent in robotic surgery: quality of information and patient perception. Open Med 2016; 11: In pressGoogle Scholar
Ferrarese A, Solej M, Enrico S, et al. Elective and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly: our experience. BMC Surg 2013; 13 Suppl 2:S21Google Scholar
Ferrarese A, Solej M, Enrico S, et al. Diagnosis of incidental gallbladder cancer after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: our experience. BMC Surg 2013; 13 Suppl 2:S20Google Scholar
Ferrarese A, Enrico S, Solej M, et al.Transabdominal pre-peritoneal mesh in inguinal hernia repair in elderly: end point of our experience. BMC Surg 2013; 13 Suppl 2:S24Google Scholar
Ferrarese A, Martino V, Enrico S et al. Laparoscopic repair of wound defects in the elderly: our experience of 5 years. BMC Surg 2013; 13 Suppl 2:S23Google Scholar
Ferrarese A, Martino V, Enrico S, et al. Laparoscopic appendectomy in the elderly: our experience. BMC Surg 2013; 13 Suppl 2:S22Google Scholar
Solej M, Martino V, Mao P, et al. Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Minerva Chir 2012 Oct; 67(5):381-387Google Scholar
Ferrarese A, Martino V, Falcone A, et al. Diverticoli duodenali perforati: caso clinico e breve review della letteratura. Chirurgia 2014 Aprile; 27(2):129-131 Google Scholar
About the article
Published Online: 2016-12-16
Published in Print: 2016-01-01
Potential and real conflicts of interest: All authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Citation Information: Open Medicine, Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 564–573, ISSN (Online) 2391-5463, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2016-0092.
© 2016 Alessandro Borello et al.. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0