No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Consent for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: are we complying with the law?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2022
Abstract
Objective
To assess the current standard of consent for functional endoscopic sinus surgery and determine whether it complies with the law following the Montgomery ruling.
Methods
Ten complications following functional endoscopic sinus surgery were identified as common or serious from a literature search. Using questionnaires, ENT surgeons were asked which of these complications they discussed with patients, and patients were asked how seriously they regarded those risks using a five-point Likert scale.
Results
Consent practice from 21 ENT surgeons and data from 103 patients were analysed. The ‘reasonable patient’ would expect to be consented for all risks, except for pain, and scarring or adhesions. Most ENT surgeons would routinely discuss all risks that were considered significant, except for facial paraesthesia (29 per cent) and damage to the nasolacrimal duct (24 per cent). A negative change in sense of smell was not mentioned by 29 per cent of surgeons.
Conclusion
This paper demonstrates that the current consent process for functional endoscopic sinus surgery is likely to be substandard medicolegally.
Information
- Type
- Main Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED
Footnotes
Mr H Raja takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper
References
NHS Digital. Hospital Episode Statistics, Admitted Patient Care, England – 2019–20: Main procedures and interventions. In: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity/2019-20 [15 December 2021]Google Scholar
Krings, JG, Kallogjeri, D, Wineland, A, Nepple, KG, Piccirillo, JF, Getz, AE. Complications of primary and revision functional endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2014;124:838–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Supreme Court. Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland). In: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0136.html [15 December 2021]Google Scholar
Brahams, D. Doctor's duty to inform patient of substantial or special risks when offering treatment. Lancet 1985;1:528–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Surgeons of England. Consent: Supported Decision Making. In: https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/standards-and-research/standards-and-guidance/good-practice-guides/consent/ [15 December 2021]Google Scholar
ENT UK. Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery. In: https://www.entuk.org/functional-endoscopic-sinus-surgery-fess [15 December 2021]Google Scholar
Dalziel, K, Stein, K, Round, A, Garside, R, Royle, P. Endoscopic sinus surgery for the excision of nasal polyps: a systematic review of safety and effectiveness. Am J Rhinol 2006;20:506–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suzuki, S, Yasunaga, H, Matsui, H, Fushimi, K, Kondo, K, Yamasoba, T. Complication rates after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: analysis of 50,734 Japanese patients. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1785–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, SJ, Hawn, VS, Zhu, N, Fang, CH, Gao, Q, Akbar, NA et al. Postoperative infection rate and associated factors following endoscopic sinus surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2022;131:5–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hosemann, W, Draf, C. Danger points, complications and medico-legal aspects in endoscopic sinus surgery. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;12:Doc06Google ScholarPubMed
Blomqvist, EH, Brämerson, A, Stjärne, P, Nordin, S. Consequences of olfactory loss and adopted coping strategies. Rhinology 2004;42:189–94Google ScholarPubMed
Shin, JH, Kim, YD, Woo, KI; Korean Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (KSOPRS). Impact of epiphora on vision-related quality of life. BMC Ophthalmol 2015;15:6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolf, JS, Chiu, AG, Palmer, JN, O'Malley, BW Jr, Schofield, K, Taylor, RJ. Informed consent in endoscopic sinus surgery: the patient perspective. Laryngoscope 2005;115:492–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navaratnam, AV, Hariri, A, Ho, C, Machin, JT, Briggs, TW, Marshall, A. Otorhinolaryngology litigation in England: 727 clinical negligence cases against the National Health Service. Clin Otolaryngol 2021;46:9–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raja, H, Talwar, R. Consent for septoplasty: are we meeting patients' expectations? Med Leg J 2021;89:237–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lane, J, Bhome, R, Somani, B. National trends and cost of litigation in UK National Health Service (NHS): a specialty-specific analysis from the past decade. Scott Med J 2021;66:168–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolisano, AM, Justin, GA, Ruhl, DS, Cable, BB. Rhinology and medical malpractice: an update of the medicolegal landscape of the last ten years. Laryngoscope 2016;126:14–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynn-Macrae, AG, Lynn-Macrae, RA, Emani, J, Kern, RC, Conley, DB. Medicolegal analysis of injury during endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1492–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fink, AS, Prochazka, AV, Henderson, WG, Bartenfeld, D, Nyirenda, C, Webb, A et al. Predictors of comprehension during surgical informed consent. J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:919–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed