ArticleCureus2024
Improving the Consent Process for Superficial Abscesses Through Pre-printed Consent Forms.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Informed consent is essential to ensure that patients are appropriately educated about proposed procedures, including associated risks and potential benefits, to make a valid decision. Incision and drainage of an abscess is a common procedure performed by various healthcare professionals. Inconsistent practices in the consent process can lead to misunderstandings among the patient and have financial and legal complications for both the clinician and the hospital. This study aims to improve the consent process for the incision and drainage of a superficial abscess via the implementation of pre-printed consent forms. Method We conducted a retrospective, single-centre study to evaluate existing consent forms, found in patients' notes, for the incision and drainage of superficial abscesses. The goal was to assess these forms for standardisation, ultimately developing a pre-printed consent form suitable for use by a diverse range of healthcare professionals. Results This study revealed significant inconsistencies in consent documentation. While 20 out of 22 (91%) consent forms included infection as a documented risk, only 11 out of 22 (50%) mentioned COVID-19 as a potential risk. The study found that 22 of our 22 (100%) consent forms were documented in black ink. Providing patients with copies of the consent forms can enhance their understanding by allowing them to review the information at home. Eight out of 22 (36%) patients were offered a copy, and 13 out of 22 consent forms (59%) were noted to have abbreviations, both of which may limit understanding and comprehension of the procedure. After implementing a pre-printed consent form, 14 clinicians surveyed (100%) reported that the forms were effective, with 12 out of 14 (86%) indicating they would use these pre-printed forms in their future practice. Conclusion The identified variations and inconsistencies in the consent process prompted the creation of a standardised pre-printed consent form. Feedback on this form has been positive, indicating its potential to transform the consent process. The sample size was small, so early results are positive; however, further ongoing work would be required to draw a more definitive conclusion.
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.