Practices of Informed Consent for Emergency Procedures at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan.

Background The purpose of obtaining informed consent is to ensure that patients undergoing any medical or surgical intervention are neither deceived nor coerced. Accurately estimating surgical risks is critical for shared decision-making and informed consent. Probable complications and alternative procedures should be presented to the patient so that they can freely choose an operative option. However, this factor is difficult to carry on in emergencies where an urgent decision is required. Objective This study aimed to assess the ongoing clinical practices of informed consent in emergency surgeries at a tertiary care facility. Materials and methods A cross-sectional survey was carried out from March 2022 to June 2022 at the Department of General Surgery, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, with patients who had undergone surgical procedures under local, spinal, or general anesthesia within 24 hours of presentation. A Google Form (Google Inc., Mountainview, CA) was designed, containing a predefined set of 32 standard questions, and patients were interviewed in their native language to assess their satisfaction regarding the pattern and components of emergency informed consent. Categorical data were assessed using measures of central tendency, frequencies, and percentages. Results A total of 169 patients were selected for the study. Only 1.6% of them signed the consent form themselves, while 93.5% of the forms were signed by their first-degree relatives. Verbal consent was taken in 4.8% of cases. In 88% of cases, informed consent was obtained by the house surgeons. The majority of patients, i.e., 78.2%, were not able to read the written consent form; however, 83.1% understood the verbal information. About 66.3% of patients agreed that they were informed about the nature of their disease, while 67.5%, 14.8%, and 13.7% affirmed that they were explained the nature of surgical intervention, associated risks, and type of anesthesia, respectively. Overall, 59.5% of patients felt satisfied with the process of informed consent. About 91.1% of the patients believed that their decisions were unaffected by the procurement of informed consent. Conclusion The existing practices of informed consent and comprehension by the population were found to be substandard. Physicians seem to ignore bioethics, and patients appear to be unaware of their basic rights. Although practiced at our center, not all components of informed consent were communicated to the patients. The risks of the procedures and the mode of anesthesia used were not well addressed by doctors. There is a grave need to educate the medical community about the legal and ethical aspects of informed consent, as well as the public masses regarding their rights.