ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2017
A survey of doctors at a UK teaching hospital to assess understanding of recent changes to consent law.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consent: Doctor, can you please do my operation?Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Challenge of achieving truly individualised informed consent in therapeutic endoscopy.Frontline gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Examining the variation in consent in general surgery.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe UK Supreme Court recently ruled that when consenting patients for treatments or procedures, clinicians must also discuss any associated material risks. We surveyed medical staff at a large UK teaching hospital in order to ascertain knowledge of consent law and current understanding of this change. MATERIALS AND
methodsEmail survey sent to medical staff in all specialities at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in February 2016.
results245 responses (141 Consultants and 104 junior doctors, response rate 32%). 82% consent patients for procedures at least monthly and 23% daily. 31% were not familiar with the concept of material risk. 35% were familiar with the recent change in consent law, 41% were not. 18% were "very uncertain" and 64% "a little uncertain" that their consenting process meets current legal requirements. >92% think that landmark cases and changes in law should be discussed through professional bodies and circulated better locally.
conclusionThe majority were not familiar with the concept of material risk and recent legal changes. A majority were not confident that their practice meets current requirements, suggesting that recent changes in consent law may not be widely understood at this hospital. We suggest more guidance and education may be necessary than is currently available. Increased understanding of recent changes to consent law will reduce the risk taken by NHS trusts and offer patients a service compliant with Supreme Court guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.