Achieving good-quality consent: review of literature, case law and guidance
File(s)bjs5.50306.pdf (717.58 KB)
Published version
Author(s)
Normahani, Pasha
Sounderajah, Viknesh
Harrop-Griffiths, William
Chukwuemeka, Andrew
Peters, Nicholas
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background
Informed consent is an integral part of clinical practice. There is widespread agreement amongst health professionals that obtaining procedural consent needs to move away from a unidirectional transfer of information to a process of supporting patients in making informed, self‐determined decisions. This review aimed to identify processes and measures that warrant consideration when engaging in consent‐based discussions with competent patients undergoing elective procedures.
Methods
Formal written guidance from the General Medical Council and Royal College of Surgeons of England, in addition to peer‐reviewed literature and case law, was considered in the formulation of this review.
Results
A framework for obtaining consent is presented that is informed by the key tenets of shared decision‐making (SDM), a model that advocates the contribution of both the clinician and patient to the decision‐making process through emphasis on patient participation, analysis of empirical evidence, and effective information exchange. Moreover, areas of contention are highlighted in which further guidance and research are necessary for improved enhancement of the consent process.
Conclusion
This SDM‐centric framework provides structure, detail and suggestions for achieving meaningful consent.
Informed consent is an integral part of clinical practice. There is widespread agreement amongst health professionals that obtaining procedural consent needs to move away from a unidirectional transfer of information to a process of supporting patients in making informed, self‐determined decisions. This review aimed to identify processes and measures that warrant consideration when engaging in consent‐based discussions with competent patients undergoing elective procedures.
Methods
Formal written guidance from the General Medical Council and Royal College of Surgeons of England, in addition to peer‐reviewed literature and case law, was considered in the formulation of this review.
Results
A framework for obtaining consent is presented that is informed by the key tenets of shared decision‐making (SDM), a model that advocates the contribution of both the clinician and patient to the decision‐making process through emphasis on patient participation, analysis of empirical evidence, and effective information exchange. Moreover, areas of contention are highlighted in which further guidance and research are necessary for improved enhancement of the consent process.
Conclusion
This SDM‐centric framework provides structure, detail and suggestions for achieving meaningful consent.
Date Issued
2020-10-01
Date Acceptance
2020-05-05
Citation
British Journal of Surgery, 2020, 4 (5), pp.757-763
ISSN
0007-1323
Publisher
Wiley
Start Page
757
End Page
763
Journal / Book Title
British Journal of Surgery
Volume
4
Issue
5
Copyright Statement
© 2020 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Journal of Surgery Society
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Identifier
https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bjs5.50306
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Surgery
SHARED DECISION-MAKING
PATIENTS PREFERENCES
HEALTH OUTCOMES
MODEL
RISK
CARE
SURGERY
OPTION
TIME
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2020-05-31