Dataset Information

Quality of informed consent documents among US. hospitals: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To determine whether informed consent for surgical procedures performed in US hospitals meet a minimum standard of quality, we developed and tested a quality measure of informed consent documents. DESIGN:Retrospective observational study of informed consent documents. SETTING:25 US hospitals, diverse in size and geographical region. COHORT:Among Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing elective procedures in participating hospitals, we assessed the informed consent documents associated with these procedures. We aimed to review 100 qualifying procedures per hospital; the selected sample was representative of the procedure types performed at each hospital. PRIMARY OUTCOME:The outcome was hospital quality of informed consent documents, assessed by two independent raters using an eight-item instrument previously developed for this measure and scored on a scale of 0-20, with 20 representing the highest quality. The outcome was reported as the mean hospital document score and the proportion of documents meeting a quality threshold of 10. Reliability of the hospital score was determined based on subsets of randomly selected documents; face validity was assessed using stakeholder feedback. RESULTS:Among 2480 informed consent documents from 25 hospitals, mean hospital scores ranged from 0.6 (95% CI 0.3 to 0.9) to 10.8 (95% CI 10.0 to 11.6). Most hospitals had at least one document score at least 10 out of 20 points, but only two hospitals had >50% of their documents score above a 10-point threshold. The Spearman correlation of the measures score was 0.92. Stakeholders reported that the measure was important, though some felt it did not go far enough to assess informed consent quality. CONCLUSION:All hospitals performed poorly on a measure of informed consent document quality, though there was some variation across hospitals. Measuring the quality of hospital's informed consent documents can serve as a first step in driving attention to gaps in quality.

SUBMITTER: Spatz ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7247389 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of informed consent documents among US. hospitals: a cross-sectional study.

Spatz Erica S ES Bao Haikun H Herrin Jeph J Desai Vrunda V Ramanan Sriram S Lines Lynette L Dendy Rebecca R Bernheim Susannah M SM Krumholz Harlan M HM Lin Zhenqiu Z Suter Lisa G LG

BMJ open 20200519 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether informed consent for surgical procedures performed in US hospitals meet a minimum standard of quality, we developed and tested a quality measure of informed consent documents.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective observational study of informed consent documents.<h4>Setting</h4>25 US hospitals, diverse in size and geographical region.<h4>Cohort</h4>Among Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing elective procedures in participating hospitals, we assessed the info ...[more]

PMID: 32434934

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInformed consent (IC) is an essential step in helping patients be aware of consequences of their treatment decisions. With surgery, it is vitally important for patients to understand the risks and benefits of the procedure and decide accordingly. We explored whether a written IC form was provided to patients; whether they read and signed it; whether they communicated orally with the physician; whether these communications influenced patient decisions.MethodsAdult postsurgical patients in nine general hospitals of Italy's Campania Region were interviewed via a structured questionnaire between the second and seventh day after the surgery at the end of the first surgical follow up visit. Physicians who were independent from the surgical team administered the questionnaire.ResultsThe written IC form was given to 84.5% of those interviewed. All recipients of the form signed it, either personally or through a delegate; however, 13.9% did not know/remember having done so; 51.8% said that they read it thoroughly. Of those who reported to have read it, 90.9% judged it to be clear. Of those receiving the written consent form, 52.0% had gotten it the day before the surgery at the earliest 41.1% received it some hours or immediately before the procedure. The written IC form was explained to 65.6% of the patients, and 93.9% of them received further oral information that deemed understandable. Most attention was given to the diagnosis and the type of surgical procedure, which was communicated respectively to 92.8 and 88.2% of the patients. Almost one in two patients believed that the information provided some emotional relief, while 23.2% experienced increased anxiety. Younger patients (age???60) and patients with higher levels of education were more likely to read the written IC form.ConclusionsThe written IC form is not sufficient in assuring patients and making them fully aware of choices they made for their health; pre-operative information that was delivered orally better served the patients' needs. To improve the quality of communication we suggest enhancing physicians' communication skills and for them to use structured conversation to ensure that individuals are completely informed before undergoing their procedures.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a nationally applicable tool for assessing the quality of informed consent documents for elective procedures.DesignMixed qualitative-quantitative approach.SettingConvened seven meetings with stakeholders to obtain input and feedback on the tool.ParticipantsTeam of physician investigators, measure development experts, and a working group of nine patients and patient advocates (caregivers, advocates for vulnerable populations and patient safety experts) from different regions of the country.InterventionsWith stakeholder input, we identified elements of high-quality informed consent documents, aggregated into three domains: content, presentation and timing. Based on this comprehensive taxonomy of key elements, we convened the working group to offer input on the development of an abstraction tool to assess the quality of informed consent documents in three phases: (1) selecting the highest-priority elements to be operationalised as items in the tool; (2) iteratively refining and testing the tool using a sample of qualifying informed consent documents from eight hospitals; and (3) developing a scoring approach for the tool. Finally, we tested the reliability of the tool in a subsample of 250 informed consent documents from 25 additional hospitals.OutcomesAbstraction tool to evaluate the quality of informed consent documents.ResultsWe identified 53 elements of informed consent quality; of these, 15 were selected as highest priority for inclusion in the abstraction tool and 8 were feasible to measure. After seven cycles of iterative development and testing of survey items, and development and refinement of a training manual, two trained raters achieved high item-level agreement, ranging from 92% to 100%.ConclusionsWe identified key quality elements of an informed consent document and operationalised the highest-priority elements to define a minimum standard for informed consent documents. This tool is a starting point that can enable hospitals and other providers to evaluate and improve the quality of informed consent.

Project description:BackgroundInformed consent is a process that needs time and effort to satisfy patients' desires. Patient dissatisfaction on preoperative informed consent process may be caused by multiple factors of clinical practice. This study aimed to assess patients' satisfaction and associated factors of informed consent process among elective surgical patients.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on 404 postoperative patients who signed the informed consent for elective surgery. A systematic sampling technique was applied to select the study participants. Modified Leiden perioperative patient satisfaction tool was adapted to assess patients' satisfaction with preoperative informed consent process. Data were entered in to Epi-data version 4.20 and exported to SPSS version 20 for analysis. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression was computed to identify independent variables associated with patient satisfaction towards preoperative informed consent process. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used to declare the statistical significance.ResultsThe overall satisfaction of patients with preoperative informed consent process was 70.3%. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that, being male (AOR: 4.75, 95% CI: 2.47-9.16), primary school (AOR: 8.42, 95% CI: 4.74-7.55), secondary school (AOR: 2.17, 95% CI: 5.74-8.62), rural residence (AOR: 1.8, 95% CI: 2.1-3.9) and received general anesthesia (AOR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.62-5.26) were significantly associated with patients' satisfaction with the informed consent process.ConclusionThe overall patients' satisfaction on preoperative informed consent process was relatively low. Being male, low level of education, living in rural area, and receiving general anesthesia were significantly associated with patients' satisfaction on informed consent process. Surgeons and anesthesia professionals need to work more to improving the satisfaction of patients with preoperative informed consent process. Researchers are expected to do periodic assessment of patients' level of satisfaction and factors affecting satisfaction.

Project description:BackgroundInformed consent (IC) is a healthcare standard emphasizing the meaning of human dignity as clarified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Data about IC practices in Egypt is insufficient. This study aimed to assess the Egyptian patients'/guardians' experiences about IC and their expectations about its practices' purposes in general and according to the type of the healthcare facility.MethodsSelf-administered questionnaire was carried out for 1092 participants who had undergone or were scheduled to a procedure requiring an IC at three studied types for Egyptian health care facilities. Ten statements were ranked twice by the participants to reflect their perception of IC purpose as per what is currently practiced and what they believe should be practiced.ResultsIC implementation varies significantly (p<0.05) across the health care facilities in Egypt. The percentage of its implementation at the non-governmental facilities, governmental facilities, and university hospital was 85.9%, 77.8%, and 63.8 respectively. The first three ranked purposes of the current IC practices were: "Helping patient/guardian decide (64.9%)", "Documenting patient's/guardian's decision (59.3%)", and "Having shared decision (57.3%)". The perceived purposes of IC to be practiced were: "Informing the patient/guardian (68.4%)", "Making sure patient/guardian understand (65.3%)" and "Documenting patients/guardians decisions (65.1%)". "Being a meaningless routine" was reported by the majority to be ranked as a low purpose for IC current and preferred practices.ConclusionThe practice of IC is common within the Egyptian medical community. Participants believe that information disclosure "Making sure patients understand" has to help in IC decision making and its main purpose. However, unfortunately, this is not perceived as a current purpose of IC. There was consensus agreement that documenting the patient's/guardian's decision and informing the patient/guardian are perceived as both important current and preferred purposes for IC practices.

Project description:BackgroundInformed consent documents for clinical studies should disclose all reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits. Little guidance exists on how to navigate the complexities of risk-benefit communication, especially in early clinical research. Practice-oriented development of such guidance should be informed by evidence on what and how details of risks and benefits are currently communicated.MethodWe surveyed the responsible parties of phase I/II trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that started 2007 or later and completed between 2012 and 2016 to sample informed consent documents from a broad spectrum of early phase clinical trials. Based on an assessment matrix, we qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the informed consent documents for details of risk-benefit communication.ResultsThe risk-benefit communication in the 172 informed consent documents differed substantially in several regards. The outcome, extent, and likelihood of health risks, for example, were described in 83%, 32%, and 63% of the informed consent documents. Only 45% of informed consent documents specified the outcome of mentioned health benefits, and the extent and likelihood of health benefits were never specified. From those informed consent documents reporting risk likelihoods, only 57% added frequency numbers to words such as "common" or "rare," and even in these cases, we found strong variations for presented frequency ranges. Substantial heterogeneity also exists for how informed consent documents communicate other risk and benefit types and related safeguards.ConclusionOur study points to several shortcomings and heterogeneities in how informed consent documents communicate risks and benefits to potential research participants. Health risks, for example, should be specified with frequency numbers, and health benefits should be specified at least by mentioning their outcomes. Further demand for research and policy development is needed to harmonize risk-benefit communication and to clarify ways to specify the likelihood of health benefits.

Project description:ImportanceInformed consent is a fundamental element of research ethics. The COVID-19 vaccine trials are high profile trials that have enrolled more than 100 000 participants. Consent documents must be succinct and understandable to ensure informed voluntary participation.ObjectiveTo assess how well informed consent documents of the COVID-19 vaccine trials achieve the ideal of being succinct and understandable, and to create a shorter, more readable document.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study collected and analyzed the informed consent documents used in 4 COVID-19 vaccine phase III randomized clinical trials to quantitatively assess readability and length and, based on this analysis, created a measurably more accessible informed consent document. Analysis was conducted from October 2020 to January 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were number of words (measured as word count), time-to-read (measured at reading speeds of 175-300 words per minute), language complexity (measured using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level assessment), and readability (measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score). Secondary outcomes included clarity of how the placebo group could access the vaccine if it is proven safe and effective. The study also examined the length and readability of an improved consent document.ResultsThe 4 informed consent documents were a mean (range) of 8333 (7821 to 9340) words long, with a mean (range) 35 (32.6 to 38.9) minutes to read at 240 words per minute. All documents exceeded grade 9 language complexity and scored lower than 60 in the formal reading ease metric, which constitutes difficult. Only 1 document specified that participants in the placebo group might receive vaccine. It was possible to write a document in fewer than 3000 words with a grade 7 to 8 reading level and a formal readability score that was not difficult.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that existing COVID-19 vaccine informed consent documents were too long, difficult to read, and exceeded grade 9 in language complexity. It was possible to create a shorter, more readable informed consent document for these trials.

Project description:ObjectiveProviding comprehensible information is essential to the process of valid informed consent. Recruitment materials designed by sponsoring institutions in English-speaking, high-income countries are commonly translated for use in global health studies in other countries; however, key concepts are often missed, misunderstood or 'lost in translation'. The aim of this study was to explore the language barriers to informed consent, focusing on the challenges of translating recruitment materials for maternal health studies into Zambian languages.DesignWe used a qualitative approach, which incorporated a multistakeholder workshop (11 participants), in-depth interviews with researchers and translators (8 participants) and two community-based focus groups with volunteers from community advisory boards (20 participants). Content analysis was used to identify terms commonly occurring in recruitment materials prior to the workshop. The framework analysis approach was used to analyse interview data, and a simple inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse focus group data.SettingThe study was based in Lusaka, Zambia.ResultsThe workshop highlighted difficulties in translating research terms and pregnancy-specific terms, as well as widespread concern that current templates are too long, use overly formal language and are designed with little input from local teams. Framework analysis of in-depth interviews identified barriers to participant understanding relating to design and development of recruitment materials, language, local context and communication styles. Focus group participants confirmed these findings and suggested potential solutions to ensure the language and content of recruitment materials can be better understood.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate that the way in which recruitment materials are currently designed, translated and disseminated may not enable potential trial participants to fully understand the information provided. Instead of using overly complex institutional templates, recruitment materials should be created through an iterative and interactive process that provides truly comprehensible information in a format appropriate for its intended participants.

Project description:Informed consent for emergency surgery is a process in which a patient or their next of kin must make quick decisions required for surgery in a life-threatening situation or surgery that may have life-altering outcomes. The objective of the study was to describe patients and their next of kin experiences and factors influencing the informed consent process in two urban university teaching hospitals in Uganda.MethodsA cross-sectional survey involving patients who underwent emergency surgery and their next of kin was conducted in two tertiary care hospitals; one public and one private-not-for profit institution. A questionnaire was administered to collect sociodemographic information, type of Surgery that was done, how informed consent was obtained and experiences and expectations from the informed consent process. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the variables was done.ResultsWe collected data from 210 patients from a public hospital and 170 from a private-not-for profit hospital. Overall, most patients did not have the risks of the surgery communicated to them (79.7%), were not given alternative options (87.6%) and had no opportunity to ask questions (57.4%). Patients at the private institution had 3.35 times the odds of expecting the consent form to be explained to them than those at the public institution. Patients at the public hospital had 0.12 times the odds of preferring to have consent administered by a nurse than patients at the private institution OR 0.12 (0.05-0.29, p < 0.001). Patients in the public institution had 0.18 times the odds of preferring to have consent administered by a doctor than patients in the private institution OR 0.18 (0.08-0.45, p < 0.001).ConclusionPatients in both public and private institutions are not informed about the risks of surgery, alternative options and are not given the opportunity to ask questions. Interpretation of the findings of this study on patient preferences on who administered consent though statistically significant were inconclusive due to the responses not being mutually exclusive.

Dataset Information

Quality of informed consent documents among US. hospitals: a cross-sectional study.

Publications

Quality of informed consent documents among US. hospitals: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets