ArticleBJA open2022
Autonomous patient consent for anaesthesia without preoperative consultation: a qualitative feasibility study including low-risk procedures.
Article in BJA open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved Perioperative Risk Education Through the Use of an Interactive Online Anaesthesia Education Tool (iPREDICT): A Prospective, Randomised Controlled Single-Centre Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Prohibiting Babel-A call for professional remote interpreting services in pre-operation anaesthesia information.PloS one · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Informed consent for anaesthesia is mandatory and requires provision of information and subsequent consent during consultation between anaesthesiologist and patient. Although information can be provided in an electronic format, it is unknown whether this a valid substitute for a consultation. We explored whether provision of digital information is equivalent to oral consultation and whether it enables patients to give electronic informed consent (e-consent) for anaesthesia. Methods: Qualitative feasibility study using semi-structured interviews in 20 low-risk adults scheduled for minor surgery under general anaesthesia or procedural sedation at a university hospital. Data were analysed using a thematic content analysis approach. During the interviews, patients followed an application that provides information and subsequent e-consenting. Results: The mean age was 50 yr and patients had good digital skills. Fifteen patients (75%) had previous experience of anaesthesia. The digital application provided enough information for all patients, but eight (40%) preferred consultation with an anaesthesiologist, mainly for personal contact. Patients had different information needs, with previous experiences leading to lower information needs. Nineteen patients had sufficient information to consent autonomously. Most patients considered separate anaesthesia consent superfluous to the surgical consent. Conclusion: The digital application provided sufficient information and patients valued the information offered and the advantage of processing information at their own pace. This information made patients feel empowered to autonomously consent to anaesthesia without consultation. Remarkably, consent for anaesthesia was considered unimportant, because patients felt they had 'no choice' if they wanted to undergo surgery.
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.