Informed consent, shared-decision making and a reasonable patient’s wishes based on a cross-sectional, national survey in the USA using a hypothetical scenario

Author:

James John T,Eakins Darwin Jay,Scully Robert R

Abstract

ObjectiveIn approximately half the states in the USA, and more recently in the UK, informed consent is legally defined as what a reasonable patient would wish to know. Our objective was to discern the information needs of a hospitalised, ‘reasonable patient’ during the informed-consent process.DesignWe performed a cross-sectional study to develop a survey instrument and better define ‘reasonable person’ in relation to informed consent in a hypothetical scenario where an invasive procedure may be an option.SettingA 10-question survey was administered from April 19 through 22 October 2018 to three groups: student nurses (n=76), health professions educators (n=63) and a US national population (n=1067).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was the average intensity, on a 5-point scale, by which survey groups wished to have each of 10 questions answered. The secondary outcome was to discern relationships between survey demographics and the intensity by which participants wanted an answer.ResultsDespite substantial demographic differences in the nursing-student group and health-professions-educator group, the average intensity scores were within 0.2 units on nine of 10 questions. The national survey revealed a strong desire to have an answer to each question (range 3.98–4.60 units). It showed that women desired answers more than men and older adults desired answers more than younger adults.ConclusionsBased on responses to 10 survey questions regarding wishes of people in a situation where an invasive procedure may be necessary, the vast majority want an answer to each question. They wanted to know about all treatment options, risky drugs, decision aids, who will perform the procedure, and the cost. They wanted their advocate present, periodic review of their medical record, a full day to review documents and expected outcomes and restrictions after the procedure.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference20 articles.

1. United Nations Human Rights . Convention on the rights of the child. Available: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx [Accessed 10 Apr 2019].

2. United Nations Human Rights . Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities. Available: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx#25 [Accessed 10 Apr 2019].

3. United Nations Human Rights . United nations principles for older persons. Available: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OlderPersons.aspx [Accessed 10 Apr 2019].

4. Off-label and unlicensed prescribing in Europe: implications for patients’ informed consent and liability;Aagaard;Int J Clin Pharm,2018

5. Accad M . The case against shared-decision making. Part 1. The history of a nebulous idea. The progress notes of Michel Accad, MD. Available: http://alertandoriented.com/the-case-against-shared-decision-making-1/ [Accessed 12 Nov 2018].

Cited by 14 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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