ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Videos for informed consent enable task shifting while enhancing patient safety and satisfaction: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInformed consent with video assistance provides patients with standardized information regarding complex clinical procedures. We explored the potential of completely replacing conventional face-to-face informed consent processes involving written documents with videos for informed consent (VIC) in the context of anesthesia.
methodsA legally satisfactory VIC was developed to provide standardized information to patients and facilitate their understanding of anesthetic procedures, including their risks, benefits, and alternatives. In this single-center retrospective study, informed consent process-related data were extracted from two patient groups who underwent conventional informed consent and VIC. The opinions of the anesthesiologists were collected to evaluate workflow efficiency before and after VIC introduction. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test.
resultsBefore VIC implementation, bedside IC required a median total time of 45 [30–60] min, including 10 [5–10] min of travel time and 35 [25–50] min for anesthesia explanation. After VIC adoption, bedside IC was completely eliminated, and the median duration for outpatient IC decreased to 21 [14–30] min for conventional IC and 17 [12–22] min for VIC (p < 0.001). Approximately 97% of patients reported that VIC aided them in obtaining an explanation of the anesthesia, and 94% of patients who received VIC sufficiently understood the content of the informed consent. After the VIC introduction, 80% of patients reported that they would choose an outpatient clinic with a VIC over a conventional informed consent if given the option. Before and after 6 months of adopting VIC, 53% and 69% of anesthesiologists felt favorably about VIC, increasing to 86% after one year of VIC adoption.
conclusionsVIC introduction successfully redistributed anesthesiologists’ workload and eliminated the need for bedside IC, while maintaining patient comprehension and satisfaction. These findings suggest that the standardized, repetitive components of the informed consent process are suitable candidates for digital transformation.
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.