Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35159954›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Digital Online Anaesthesia Patient Informed Consent before Elective Diagnostic Procedures or Surgery: Recent Practice in Children-An Exploratory ESAIC Survey (2021).

Claudia Neumann, Grigorij Schleifer, Nadine Strassberger-Nerschbach, Johannes Kamp, Gregor Massoth, Alexandra Görtzen-Patin, Dishalen Cudian, Markus Velten, Mark Coburn, Ehrenfried Schindler and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Claudia NeumannDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5593-2871
Grigorij SchleiferDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Nadine Strassberger-NerschbachDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Johannes KampDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Gregor MassothDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4973-2208
Alexandra Görtzen-PatinDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Dishalen CudianDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Markus VeltenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5439-4648
Mark CoburnDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7930-0270
Ehrenfried SchindlerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2377-3327
Maria WittmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4786-7712

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne undisputed benefit of digital support is the possibility of contact reduction, which has become particularly important in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is currently no study assessing the Europe-wide use of digital online pre-operative patient information or evaluation in the health sector. The aim of this study was to give an overview of the current status in Europe.

methodsA web-based questionnaire covering the informed consent process was sent to members of the European Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (ESAIC) in 47 European countries (42,433 recipients/930 responses). Six questions related specifically to the practice in paediatrics.

resultsA total of 70.2% of the respondents indicated that it was not possible to obtain informed consent via the Internet in a routine setting, and 67.3% expressed that they did not know whether it is in line with the legal regulations. In paediatric anaesthesia, the informed consent of only one parent was reported to be sufficient by 77.6% of the respondents for simple interventions and by 63.8% for complex interventions. Just over 50% of the respondents judged that proof of identity of the parents was necessary, but only 29.9% stated that they ask for it in clinical routine. In the current situation, 77.9% would favour informed consent in person, whereas 60.2% could imagine using online or telephone interviews as an alternative to a face-to-face meeting if regulations were changed. Only 18.7% participants reported a change in the regulations due to the current pandemic situation.

conclusionWhether informed consent is obtained either online or on the telephone in the paediatric population varies widely across Europe and is not currently implemented as standard practice. For high-risk patients, such as the specific cohort of children with congenital heart defects, wider use of telemedicine might provide a benefit in the future in terms of reduced contact and reduced exposure to health risks through additional hospital stays.

Indexed as

childrendigital informed consentEuropean practicetelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35159954
PMCPMC8836584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.