ArticleSurgery in practice and science2025
Improving consenting practice in trauma and orthopaedics: A single centre original mixed methods study.
Article in Surgery in practice and science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "Improving consenting practice in trauma and orthopaedics: A single centre original mixed methods study".Surgery in practice and science · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Informed consent represents a cornerstone of ethical and legal surgical practice across numerous healthcare systems, including that of the United Kingdom. Despite its recognised importance, achieving consistency and comprehensiveness in the consent process remains a persistent challenge, particularly within busy and time-constrained clinical environments. This study critically evaluates existing consenting practices in the Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics at Worcestershire Acute Hospitals. It also presents the department's experience with implementing electronic consent (e-consent) forms as a replacement for traditional handwritten documentation. Methodology: A two-phase study was conducted at a single National Health Service (NHS) trust. In the first phase, 102 handwritten surgical consent forms were retrospectively audited against national guidelines to assess compliance in areas such as timing of consent, legibility, provision of information, and documentation of risks and alternatives. The second phase involved a structured survey of clinicians within the orthopaedic department to explore their experiences with the current process and their perceptions of electronic alternatives. Results: The audit revealed major shortcomings in the handwritten consent process: only 21 % of forms were completed well in advance of surgery, fewer than half provided adequate procedural information, and just 17 % documented all available treatment options. Over 60 % were poorly legible, and most lacked complete documentation of risks and benefits. Survey results indicated widespread clinician dissatisfaction and a strong preference for e-consent systems to improve legibility, clarity, and patient engagement. Conclusion: The study highlights significant deficiencies in handwritten consent practices and supports adopting standardised e-consent systems to enhance communication, patient comprehension, and medico-legal protection.
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.