ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Standardising written informed consent forms to improve patient care: a quality improvement project.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Informed consent is a critical component of patient-centred care, yet variability in its delivery can undermine patient understanding, satisfaction and autonomy. In practice, however, the process is often hindered by high clinical workloads, time pressures and the absence of a standardised approach, which can lead to incomplete explanations, variability in practice and reduced patient comprehension. This project aimed to improve patient understanding and satisfaction with bedside procedures by introducing a standardised informed consent process.This study was conducted at Hamad General Hospital's Acute Medical Assessment Unit to enhance the informed consent process for routine medical procedures, including thoracocentesis, paracentesis, lumbar puncture and blood transfusions. Prefilled consent forms were developed for each bedside procedure, detailing both common and uncommon complications with estimated prevalence. Multilingual patient information templates and pictorial aids were produced to address the needs of patients from diverse language and literacy backgrounds. The intervention was implemented over 10 sequential Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, each lasting 4 weeks, targeting barriers such as workflow integration, accessibility of forms and staff engagement.Patient satisfaction with the informed consent process increased from 64% to 94% over the course of the project. Patients reported improved understanding of procedure risks, benefits and alternatives and nursing staff described greater confidence and proactive participation in the process.This outcome supports a structured, standardised consent process supported by multilingual written materials and visual aids, which can substantially improve patient understanding and satisfaction for bedside procedures. Embedding these tools into routine workflows, supported by multidisciplinary engagement, can deliver more equitable and consistent 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.