Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024
Role of procedure-specific consent forms in clinical practice: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Norvill J, Bent C, Mawhinney J A, Johnson N
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Consent forms play an active role in the consent process with generic, handwritten consent forms (GCF) often the standard across the National Health Service. Increasingly, procedure-specific consent forms (PSCF) are being used as an alternative. However, concerns remain about whether they meet the standard for consent. We therefore conducted a systematic review with the objectives of investigating evidence for PSCF, study methodology and medicolegal criteria.
METHODS: This systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023392693) and conducted from 1 January 1990 to 17 March 2023 using the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Emcare databases. A grey literature search was also performed. All studies evaluating PSCF in medical and surgical settings were included. Risk-of-bias analysis was performed using 'RoB 2' and 'ROBINS-I'. Meta-analysis was not possible because of the results' heterogeneity.
FINDINGS: We identified 21 studies investigating PSCF with no systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported. Most studies were quality improvement projects (n = 10) followed by randomised studies (n = 5). No definitive legal guidance for PSCFs and no studies assessing their role in litigation post-procedural complications were identified. PSCFs were associated with improved documentation (70%-100%; n = 11) and legibility (100%; n = 2) compared with GCF. Randomised studies (n = 4) investigating patient understanding and recall for PSCF were inconclusive compared with GCF.
CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneous evidence available merely demonstrates superior documentation of PSCF compared with GCF. Studies do not adequately investigate the impact on informed consent and fail to address the associated legal concerns. Further randomised studies with patient-centric outcomes and consideration for medicolegal criteria are needed.
METHODS: This systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023392693) and conducted from 1 January 1990 to 17 March 2023 using the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Emcare databases. A grey literature search was also performed. All studies evaluating PSCF in medical and surgical settings were included. Risk-of-bias analysis was performed using 'RoB 2' and 'ROBINS-I'. Meta-analysis was not possible because of the results' heterogeneity.
FINDINGS: We identified 21 studies investigating PSCF with no systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported. Most studies were quality improvement projects (n = 10) followed by randomised studies (n = 5). No definitive legal guidance for PSCFs and no studies assessing their role in litigation post-procedural complications were identified. PSCFs were associated with improved documentation (70%-100%; n = 11) and legibility (100%; n = 2) compared with GCF. Randomised studies (n = 4) investigating patient understanding and recall for PSCF were inconclusive compared with GCF.
CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneous evidence available merely demonstrates superior documentation of PSCF compared with GCF. Studies do not adequately investigate the impact on informed consent and fail to address the associated legal concerns. Further randomised studies with patient-centric outcomes and consideration for medicolegal criteria are needed.