ArticleSurgical neurology international2024
Informed consent in neurosurgery - Evaluation of current practice and implementation of future strategies.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent times, clinical negligence claims against National Health Service hospitals have doubled, with 8% of claims being made due to "failure to warn/informed consent." This study aimed to assess the current compliance of the neurosurgical division within a large tertiary neuroscience center with the national legal framework and professional guidelines around the issue of surgical consent and to develop strategies to improve the consent process. Methods: Electronic patient records (EPR) were accessed to collect demographic data and information regarding the surgical procedures. Telephone questionnaires were carried out. Neurosurgical registrars were interviewed. The author met with the trust's Legal team, the neuropsychology lead, and the trust's consent lead. Results: Fifty-eight patients were included in the analysis. Of the respondents to the questionnaire, 98% felt that they were adequately informed during the consent process. When consenting patients, all registrars felt that they explained the reason for the procedure, detailed benefits, and major risks, including uncommon and rare risks. However, 50% admitted to not specifically discussing the postoperative recovery time or alternatives. Only 15% admitted to documenting on the EPR or through a letter to the patient's General Practitioner. Conclusion: Informed consent is a delicate moment of communication between a clinician and the patient. Regular training and good communication skills help staff to focus on the most relevant aspects of consent, which should be delivered in an appropriate environment and with family support. Audio-visual aids can support the process but do not replace good communication.
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.