Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29076261›Full record

Observational studyPaediatric anaesthesia2017

Informed consent in pediatric anesthesiology.

Katherine R Gentry, Katherine Lepere, Douglas J Opel

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Paediatric anaesthesia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Katherine R GentryDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3978-6659
Katherine LepereTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Douglas J OpelTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformed consent for pediatric anesthesia is unique because it is (1) obtained from surrogates (ie, parents) rather than from the patient and (2) sought after parents have authorized the surgical intervention. There are limited data on how pediatric anesthesia informed and consent discussions are conducted. The purpose of this study was to characterize the content of preanesthesia informed consent discussions and assess their impact on parent recall and understanding.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional observational study at a tertiary pediatric hospital. We audio-recorded and transcribed preanesthesia consent discussions between pediatric anesthesia providers and parents of children undergoing elective surgery. Parents were recruited on the day of surgery and completed a survey postdiscussion to assess their recall and perceived understanding. We used directed content analysis to identify 7 informed consent elements: (i) description of the plan; mention of (ii) alternatives, (iii) risks, and (iv) benefits; (v) discussion of uncertainties; (vi) assessment of comprehension; and (vii) solicitation of a decision. We used multivariable logistic regression to explore the association between discussions that included 3 informed consent elements (description of plan, mention of risks, and mention of benefits) and parent recall and understanding of these elements.

resultsWe analyzed 97 discussions involving 41 different anesthesia providers. The element most frequently included in preanesthesia discussions was a description of the plan (100%); the least frequently included was decision solicitation (18%). Seventy-one percent of discussions included ≥5 informed consent elements and 70% included a description of the plan, mention of risks, and mention of benefits. Parental recall of these 3 informed consent elements was associated with their inclusion in the preanesthesia discussion (75% vs 34%), and more parents understood all 3 elements if they had reported (vs not reported) recall of all 3 elements (97% vs 53%).

conclusionMost pediatric preanesthesia discussions include ≥5 informed consent elements and describe the plan, mention risks, and mention benefits. Inclusion of these latter 3 consent elements was associated with parental recall of these elements but not understanding.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentAdultAnesthesiologyChildChild, PreschoolCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantMaleParental ConsentParentsPatient SatisfactionPediatricsReferral and Consultationanesthesiacommunicationgeneral surgeryparental consentparent satisfactionrisk

Identifiers

PMID29076261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.