Abstract
IntroductionThere are major differences between legal and medical approaches to informed consent. Medically, consent is obtained prospectively for an intended procedure, to inform the patient of choices, risks and benefits, and to manage expectations. Legally, consent is reviewed retrospectively, usually following unmet expectations and/or the occurrence of complications. Recent legal cases relating to clinical negligence define the establishment of causation and breach of duty related to informed consent. However, there is no prospective evidence to validate the current judicial perspectives on causation and thus clinical negligence. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether variations in consenting processes for the same procedure lead to changes in patient decision-making related to consent for that procedure.Methods and analysisThe Risks In Spinal Consenting for Surgery trial is a single-centre, non-inferiority RCT, where 220 patients, aged over 18 years, receiving an elective, day case spinal injection, will be randomised to either a ‘legally styled’ consent form with 55 risks identified in the world literature, or a ‘medically styled’ consent form with the 13 serious or most common risks usually quoted by reference to specialist society guidelines. Following explanation of the medical reasons for considering an injection therapy and consent to the trial, participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups (1:1). The patients are then given the opportunity to discuss any concerns relating to the procedure and/or risks with a single specialist practitioner. The primary outcome will be rates of consent withdrawal due to the risks explained. Secondary outcomes include scores from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Visual Analogue Scale, EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index.Ethics and disseminationResults will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences. This study is approved by the Health Research Authority: REC 16/SC/0510.Trial registration numberISRCTN67513618; Pre-results.
Reference42 articles.
1. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41.
2. Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee [1957]. 1 WLR 582. 2 All ER 118 (QBD).
3. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015]. UKSC 11. All ER (D) 113 (Mar).
4. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials
5. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials