Audit on surgical patients' understanding of their informed consent

• Published in: Surgical practice Vol. 19; no. 2; pp. 48 - 59
• Main Authors: Wong, John, Chan, Danny Tat-Ming, Tam, Yuk-Him, Ng, Simon Siu-Man, Ip, Philip Ching-Tak, Leung, Wing-Wah, Lai, Paul Bo-San
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.05.2015
• Subjects: audit; Audits; consent; Informed consent; Patients; patients' understanding; Surgery; surgical
• ISSN: 1744-1625; 1744-1633
• DOI: 10.1111/1744-1633.12110

Aim The aim of the present study was to assess patients' understanding of their informed consent to surgery preoperatively. Appropriate completeness of essential items in the written consent form was also verified. Patients and Methods An audit was conducted from March to May 2013 at a university teaching hospital. All participants were adult surgical patients. Operations were confined to major category on elective basis performed under general anaesthesia. The first part of the audit consisted of a structured questionnaire with five questions concerning their understanding and perception of the surgery. In the second part of the audit, the completeness of all fundamental items entered into the standardized written consent form was verified. Results A total of 100 surgical patients were studied, with a median age of 61 years (range: 22–89). A total of 99 per cent of participants could state the correct name and site of the procedure, and 92 per cent could state the mode of anaesthesia. Only 39 per cent of patients received an information leaflet regarding the operation, of which 80 per cent claimed this could enhance their understanding of the procedure. Only 70 per cent of them could recall the potential surgical risks. Most essential items were completed in the consent forms. Witnesses were involved only in 24 per cent of cases. Illegible surgeons' handwriting was observed in 6 per cent of consent documents. Conclusions Most patients could understand the nature and site of the operation they were going to receive. The provision of relevant information to our patients preoperatively was insufficient. Patients had limited recall of the potential surgical risks. There is room for improvement in the present informed consent process.