Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2019
Patients' Preference for Receiving Informed Consent Information Regarding Third Molar Surgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Laskin Daniel M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: It is important that patients have adequate information about a surgical procedure and its risks and benefits before giving consent to proceed. The purpose of this study was to determine patients' satisfaction with various methods of presenting such information and their preferred method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients presenting for removal of impacted third molars were shown an informational video discussing the diagnosis of impacted teeth, the potential risks of not having them removed, their treatment, the surgical complications, and the anesthetic options and risks. They subsequently met with the treating doctor, who again reviewed the material shown in the video and answered any questions before patients signed the informed consent document. Patients then completed a brief questionnaire asking them to rate their satisfaction with the 2 presentation methods and to indicate their preferred method.
RESULTS: A total of 50 patients (18 male and 32 female patients; average age, 26 years) completed the questionnaire. Of these patients, 58% had a high school education whereas 42% had some college or a college degree. Sixty-six percent of patients found the video very helpful, and 78% found the oral presentation very helpful. However, when asked which format provided the best information, 62% indicated the video whereas 38% indicated the oral presentation.
CONCLUSIONS: Because there was no clear consensus among patients regarding the best format, providing both a video and an oral presentation is the ideal situation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients presenting for removal of impacted third molars were shown an informational video discussing the diagnosis of impacted teeth, the potential risks of not having them removed, their treatment, the surgical complications, and the anesthetic options and risks. They subsequently met with the treating doctor, who again reviewed the material shown in the video and answered any questions before patients signed the informed consent document. Patients then completed a brief questionnaire asking them to rate their satisfaction with the 2 presentation methods and to indicate their preferred method.
RESULTS: A total of 50 patients (18 male and 32 female patients; average age, 26 years) completed the questionnaire. Of these patients, 58% had a high school education whereas 42% had some college or a college degree. Sixty-six percent of patients found the video very helpful, and 78% found the oral presentation very helpful. However, when asked which format provided the best information, 62% indicated the video whereas 38% indicated the oral presentation.
CONCLUSIONS: Because there was no clear consensus among patients regarding the best format, providing both a video and an oral presentation is the ideal situation.