ArticleDer Anaesthesist2015
[Form and extent of informed consent on anesthesia risks: evaluation of a survey of all legal experts in Austria].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStatistically, the chance of a patient to win a court case because of a legally insufficient informed consent is approximately 70%. In Austria the judgment whether the anesthesia-related risk of a patient was correctly addressed depends generally on the opinion of a certified expert court witness (CW).
objectivesThe opinion whether well-known anesthetic risks in a commissioned court report drawn by Austrian CWs would be considered to be "typically anesthesia-related" and "needed to be addressed" when obtaining an informed consent was evaluated. MATERIALS AND
methodsA questionnaire was sent to all Austrian CWs with 79 known anesthesia-related risks. The percentage of CWs who considered the enumerated risks as "typically anesthesia related" and "needed to be addressed" when obtaining informed consent was evaluated.
resultsIn 32 out of 79 risks between 40% and 60% of the CWs were of the opinion that informed consent was necessary. Therefore, in a legal dispute on whether an informed consent was legally sufficient or not, the judgment of the CWs is unpredictable. In addition, due to the large number of possible complications needed to be addressed, it is not feasible to obtain a legally compliant risk disclosure.
conclusionIn future new methods of knowledge transfer to the patients should be developed. In addition, a standardization of the evaluation criteria for CWs in terms of improvement of legal certainty would be desirable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25630518What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.