Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32638242›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2021

A multistage process leading to the development of a structured consent form and patient information leaflet for complex abdominal wall reconstruction (CAWR).

M Asarbakhsh, O Smith, P Chitsabesan, T MacLeod, P Lim, S Chintapatla

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Health-related quality of life in abdominal wall hernia: let's ask patients what matters to them?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022
    Article
  3. A structured pathway for developing your complex abdominal hernia service: our York pathway.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M AsarbakhshYork Teaching Hospital, (York Abdominal Wall Unit), Wigginton Road, Clifton, York, YO31 8HE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4741-7431
O SmithYork Teaching Hospital, (York Abdominal Wall Unit), Wigginton Road, Clifton, York, YO31 8HE, UK.
P ChitsabesanYork Teaching Hospital, (York Abdominal Wall Unit), Wigginton Road, Clifton, York, YO31 8HE, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4614-9866
T MacLeodYork Teaching Hospital, (York Abdominal Wall Unit), Wigginton Road, Clifton, York, YO31 8HE, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5621-4356
P LimYork Teaching Hospital, (York Abdominal Wall Unit), Wigginton Road, Clifton, York, YO31 8HE, UK.
S ChintapatlaYork Teaching Hospital, (York Abdominal Wall Unit), Wigginton Road, Clifton, York, YO31 8HE, UK. srinivas.chintapatla@york.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8326-2847

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInformed consent is vital in surgery. The General Medical Council, UK and Royal College of Surgeons of England provide clear guidance on what constitutes the process of informed patient consent. Despite this, evidence suggests that the consent process may not be performed well in surgery. We utilised a staged patient-centred approach and rigorous methodology to develop a standardised patient information leaflet (PIL) and pre-written structured consent form for complex abdominal wall reconstruction (CAWR).

methodsWe utilised the principles of Deming's Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to approach the process. Buzan's mind maps were used to identify the stakeholders and deficiencies in the consent process ('Plan' phase). The content of the PIL and pre-written consent form was then developed in collaboration with stakeholders ('Do' phase). Multidisciplinary and multidepartmental feedback was obtained on the proposed content and amendments were made ('Study' and 'Act' phases).

resultsWe successfully produced a clear, focused PIL and structured consent form, in Plain English, presenting accurate, relevant and detailed information in a highly understandable way. The PIL had a Flesch Reading Ease score of > 80, demonstrating a high level of readability and comprehensibility, with positive implications for informed patient decision making and preparedness for surgery.

conclusionThrough sharing the process that we undertook, we aim to support other abdominal wall units who wish to develop and improve their own consent process.

Indexed as

Abdominal WallConsent FormsComprehensionHerniorrhaphyHumansInformed ConsentCAWRConsent formPDSA cyclePIL

Identifiers

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.