Qualitative documentary analysis of guidance on information provision and consent for the introduction of innovative invasive procedures including surgeries within NHS organisations’ policies in England and Wales

Author:

Ochieng Cynthia AORCID,Richards HollieORCID,Zahra JesmondORCID,Cousins Sian,Elliott DaisyORCID,Wilson Nicholas,Paramasivan Sangeetha,Avery Kerry N LORCID,Mathews Johnny,Main Barry GORCID,Hinchliffe Robert,Blencowe Natalie SORCID,Blazeby Jane MORCID

Abstract

ObjectiveTo review guidance, included in written local UK National Health Service (NHS) organisation policies, on information provision and consent for the introduction of new invasive procedures- including surgeries, and devices (IPs/Ds).DesignA qualitative documentary analysis of data on patient information provision and consent extracted from policies for the introduction of IP/Ds from NHS organisations in England and Wales.SettingNHS trusts in England and health boards in Wales, UK.ParticipantsBetween December 2017 and July 2018, 150 acute trusts in England and 7 health boards in Wales were approached for their policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds. In total, 123 policies were received, 11 did not fit the inclusion criteria and a further policy was included from a trust website resulting in 113 policies included for review.ResultsFrom the 113 policies, 22 did not include any statements on informed consent/information provision or lacked guidance on the information to be provided to patients and were hence excluded. Consequently, 91 written local NHS policies were included in the final dataset. Within the guidance obtained, variation existed on disclosure of the procedure’s novelty, potential risks, benefits, uncertainties, alternative treatments and surgeon’s experience. Few policies stated that clinicians should discuss the existing evidence associated with a procedure. Additionally, while the majority of policies referred to patients needing written information, this was often not mandated and few policies specified the information to be included.ConclusionsNearly a fifth of all the policies lacked guidance on information to be provided to patients. There was variability in the policy documents regarding what patients should be told about innovative procedures. Further research is needed to ascertain the information and level of detail appropriate for patients when considering innovative procedures. A core information set including patients’ and clinicians’ views is required to address variability around information provision/consent for innovative procedures.

Funder

MRC

NIHR

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference54 articles.

1. Conceptualising surgical innovation: an Eliminativist proposal;Birchley;Health Care Analysis,2020

2. Getting clearer about surgical innovation;Hutchison;Ann Surg,2015

3. The NHS at 60: the next 60 years

4. Royal College of Surgeons . Surgical innovation, new techniques and technologies, 2019.

5. Enhanced recovery after surgery;Ljungqvist;JAMA Surg,2017

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3