ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Informed consent: is it more than a formality? a quality improvement project in surgical practice.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. 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.
- Ethical and Linguistic Quality of Participant Information Sheets and Their Association with Recruitment Outcomes : An Empirical Bioethics Study of Clinical Trials.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Informed consent is a fundamental element of clinical practice. A well-structured and understandable consent form not only upholds patients' rights but also protects clinicians against medicolegal risks. This quality improvement project aimed to identify deficiencies in the consenting process for surgical procedures and implement changes to enhance patient care. The project was conducted in the Ear Nose Throat Department at Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, a large tertiary care centre serving a predominantly low socioeconomic population in Pakistan. A total of 80 patients were included across two cycles (40 patients per cycle). Structured interviews and questionnaires were used to assess patient understanding of informed consent components. Key areas for improvement were identified. Educational sessions for doctors were organised and a new, detailed consent form was introduced. The project followed the Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology. Baseline measurements in cycle 1 showed that 15% (n=6) of consent forms were incomplete, reduced to 0% postintervention. A written explanation of the procedure was missing in 57.5% (n=23) of cases initially, improving to 10% (n=4) in cycle 2. Potential complications were not recorded in 37.5% (n=15) of cases at baseline, falling to 10% (n=4) after intervention. Verbal explanation of the procedure was omitted in 32.5% (n=13) of cases initially, reduced to 5% (n=2) postintervention. Documentation of the right to withdraw was absent in 12.5% (n=5) of cases in cycle 1, with full compliance achieved in cycle 2. This project demonstrates that targeted educational interventions and structured consent documentation can significantly improve the quality of the consenting process, promoting safer and more patient-centred care.
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.