Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wlg5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T12:32:48.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Informed consent: using a structured interview changes patients' attitudes towards informed consent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

P. J. D. Dawes ,
L. O'Keefe  and
S. Adcock
P. J. D. Dawes*
Affiliation:
Bristol
L. O'Keefe
Affiliation:
Bristol
S. Adcock
Affiliation:
Bristol
*
P. J. D. Dawes, F.R.C.S., Consultant ENT Surgeon, The Royal Infirmary, New Durham Road, Sunderland SR2 7JE.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Patients want to know more about their condition and its proposed treatment. Gaining patients' confidence before treatment reduces the chances of their seeking legal redress for an unexpected outcome. As part of a prospective study of informed consent for surgery we have assessed the attitudes of patients towards informed consent when different types of consent interview are used.

We found that most patients are happy to do as their doctor advises but think the informal consent interview is important because it gives them information; they also want to know about most, but not all, complications of the procedure. One quarter worried about the anaesthetic, about one eighth worried about ‘not waking up’ nd similar proportions worried about complications and other things such as pain and nausea. Most patients think that the consent form is a legal document.

In addition patients who had an informal interview felt obliged to sign the consent form and thought it had medicolegal implications. In contrast those who had a structured interview felt less obliged to sign the consent form and more involved in the decision to operate.

Keywords

Informed consent

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 107 , Issue 9 , September 1993 , pp. 775 - 779
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Askew, G., Pearson, K. W., Cryer, D. (1990) Informed consent; can we educate patients? Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 35: 308–310.Google Scholar
Byrne, D. J., Napier, A., Cushieri, A. (1988) How informed is signed consent? British Medical Journal 296: 839–840.Google Scholar
Dawes, P. J. D., O'Keefe, L., Adcock, S. (1992) Informed consent: the assessment of two structured interview approaches compared to the current approach. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 106: 420–424.Google Scholar
Denney, M. K., Williamson, D., Penn, R. (1975) Informed consent; emotional responses of patients. Postgraduate Medicine 5: 205–209.Google Scholar
Gibbs, S., Waters, W. E., George, C. F. (1990) Communicating information to patients about medicine. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 83: 292–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, A. W. (1990) ‘Silence in Court’: twenty-one years of otolaryngology litigation. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 104: 162–165.Google Scholar
Muss, H. B., White, D. R., Michielutte, R. et al. , (1979) Written informed consent in patients with breast cancer. Cancer 43: 1549–1556.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
President's Commission for the study of ethical problems in medicine and biomedical behavioural research. Making health care decisions: the ethical and legal implications of informed consent in the patient-practitioner relationship, vol. 2, (10 1982): Appendices: Empirical studies of informed consent. (Abram, M. B. et al. , eds.), US Government Printing Office, Washington.Google Scholar
Robinson, G., Merav, A. (1976) Informed consent: recall by patients tested post-operatively. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 22: 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villar, R. N., Hume, A. C. (1988) Informed orthopaedic consent: fact or fallacy? Journal of the Medical Defence Union 4: 32–33.Google Scholar