Dataset Information

Patients' satisfaction and associated factors towards preoperative informed consent process: A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Informed 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusion

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Ayele TT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9289491 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe informed consent process is a vital component of daily medical practice. It involves providing patients with sufficient, accurate, and understandable information to decide on a contemplated therapy. The study aims to evaluate the patient experience and satisfaction with the preoperative informed consent process.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed on adult women admitted for elective gynecologic surgery in a tertiary training hospital. Participants were recruited on their second postoperative day and were asked to answer a structured questionnaire assessing decisional satisfaction and experience with the informed consent process. Satisfaction was measured using a 6-item Satisfaction with Decision Scale. Knowledge of the surgery and experience with the informed consent were measured using an Informed Consent Questionnaire. Bivariate associations between highly satisfied and not highly satisfied groups were tested using Fisher exact test.ResultsA total of 150 patients were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 44.5 years. The resident-in-charge provided the information and assisted in the documentation of the informed consent in 86.7% and 67.3% of patients, respectively. There was an overall high decisional satisfaction with a mean score of 27.4 and 52.7% of patients strongly agreeing to all statements of the Satisfaction with Decision Scale. The majority of the respondents were informed and acknowledged comprehension of the surgery including its risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options. Knowing the success rate and benefits of the procedure as well as being informed of the need for postoperative catheterization were significantly associated with high satisfaction.ConclusionKnowledge and understanding of the key components of informed consent influence patient satisfaction. The current study highlights the high decisional satisfaction rates of patients who underwent elective gynecologic surgery. Strategies to further improve this patient-physician encounter include the establishment of standard policies on personnel involved, timing, and quality of information given to patients. Patient satisfaction should serve as an indicator of the quality of healthcare rendered and guide for continuous improvement of services.

Project description: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.

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:Informed consent is mandatory for all (surgical) procedures, but it is even more important when it comes to living kidney donors undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. Donor education, leading to informed consent, needs to be carried out according to certain standards. Informed consent procedures for live donor nephrectomy vary per centre, and even per individual healthcare professional. The basis for a standardised, uniform surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy can be created by assessing what information donors need to hear to prepare them for the operation and convalescence.The PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project is a prospective, multicentre cohort study, to be carried out in all eight Dutch kidney transplant centres. Donor knowledge of the procedure and postoperative course will be evaluated by means of pop quizzes. A baseline cohort (prior to receiving any information from a member of the transplant team in one of the transplant centres) will be compared with a control group, the members of which receive the pop quiz on the day of admission for donor nephrectomy. Donor satisfaction will be evaluated for all donors who completed the admission pop-quiz. The primary end point is donor knowledge. In addition, those elements that have to be included in the standardised format informed consent procedure will be identified. Secondary end points are donor satisfaction, current informed consent practices in the different centres (eg, how many visits, which personnel, what kind of information is disclosed, in which format, etc) and correlation of donor knowledge with surgeons' estimation thereof.Approval for this study was obtained from the medical ethical committee of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, on 18 February 2015. Secondary approval has been obtained from the local ethics committees in six participating centres. Approval in the last centre has been sought.Outcome will be published in a scientific journal.NTR5374; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundProviding understandable information to patients is necessary to achieve the aims of the Informed Consent process: respecting and promoting patients' autonomy and protecting patients from harm. In recent decades, new, primarily digital technologies have been used to apply and test innovative formats of Informed Consent. We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice. Understanding, satisfaction and participation were compared for digital tools versus the non-digital Informed Consent process.MethodsWe searched for studies on available electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Studies were identified using specific Mesh-terms/keywords. We included studies, published from January 2012 to October 2020, that focused on the use of digital Informed Consent tools for clinical research, or clinical procedures. Digital interventions were defined as interventions that used multimedia or audio-video to provide information to patients. We classified the interventions into 3 different categories: video only, non-interactive multimedia, and interactive multimedia.ResultsOur search yielded 19,579 publications. After title and abstract screening 100 studies were retained for full-text analysis, of which 73 publications were included. Studies examined interactive multimedia (29/73), non-interactive multimedia (13/73), and videos (31/73), and most (34/38) studies were conducted on adults. Innovations in consent were tested for clinical/surgical procedures (26/38) and clinical research (12/38). For research IC, 21 outcomes were explored, with a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes being observed in 8/12 studies. For clinical/surgical procedures 49 outcomes were explored, and 21/26 studies reported a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes.ConclusionsDigital technologies for informed consent were not found to negatively affect any of the outcomes, and overall, multimedia tools seem desirable. Multimedia tools indicated a higher impact than videos only. Presence of a researcher may potentially enhance efficacy of different outcomes in research IC processes. Studies were heterogeneous in design, making evaluation of impact challenging. Robust study design including standardization is needed to conclusively assess impact.