The illusion of informed consent

Anaesthesia

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 9-14

  Chrimes, N ^a   Marshall, S D ^b,c,d  

^a MONASH MEDICAL CENTRE   (Australia)

^b PENINSULA HEALTH   (Australia)

^c MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

anaesthesia; consent; medi colegal; pre operative; risk; statistics

Indexed keywords

ANESTHETIC AGENT; ELEMENT;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; ADVERSE OUTCOME; ANAPHYLAXIS; ANESTHESIA COMPLICATION; ANESTHESIA INDUCTION; ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS; AORTIC ANEURYSM; AWARENESS; BLEEDING; CLINICAL FEATURE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMORBIDITY; COMPREHENSION; EARLY INTERVENTION; EDITORIAL; EPIDURAL HEMATOMA; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEMODYNAMIC PARAMETERS; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL SERVICE; LIMB ISCHEMIA; MEDICAL PROCEDURES; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY RATE; NAUSEA; NEGLIGENCE; NERVE BLOCK; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTION; PNEUMONIA; POPULATION RISK; POSTOPERATIVE ANALGESIA; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SEPSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; THROMBOSIS; TIME TO TREATMENT; ANESTHESIOLOGY;

ANESTHESIOLOGY; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;

EID: 85037030913     PISSN: 00032409     EISSN: 13652044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14002     Document Type: Editorial

References (22)

1. Yentis SM, Hartle AJ, Barker IR, et al. AAGBI guidelines: consent for anaesthesia 2017. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 93–105.
2. ANZCA. PS26 Guidelines on Consent for Anaesthesia or Sedation: Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. 2005. http://www.anzca.edu.au/documents/ps26-2005-guidelines-on-consent-for-anaesthesia-or (accessed 30/05/2017).
3. AANA. Informed consent for anesthesia care, policy and practice considerations: American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. 2016. http://www.aana.com/resources2/professionalpractice/Pages/Informed-Consent-for-Anesthesia-Care.aspx (accessed 30/05/2017).
4. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974; 185: 1124–31.
5. Braun AR, Leslie K, Merry AF, Story D. What are we telling our patients? A survey of risk disclosure for anaesthesia in Australia and New Zealand. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 2010; 38: 935–8.
6. Findlay GP, Goodwin APL, Protopapa K, Smith NCE, Mason M. Knowing the risk: a review of the peri-operative care of surgical patients: National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. 2011. http://www.ncepod.org.uk/2011report2/downloads/POC_fullreport.pdf (accessed 30/05/2017).
7. Mashour GA, Kent C, Picton P, et al. Assessment of intraoperative awareness with explicit recall: a comparison of 2 methods. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2013; 116: 889–91.
8. Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Clinicians’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests. Journal of the American Medical Association 2017; 177: 407–19.
9. Hanley JA, Lippman-Hand A. If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. Journal of the American Medical Association 1983; 249: 1743–5.
10. National Audt Projects. Royal College of Anaesthetists, London. http://www.rcoa.ac.uk/research/national-audit-projects (accessed 27/05/2017).
11. Anaesthetic reporting system. Australian and New Zealand Tripartite Anaesthetic Data Committee. http://anztadc.net/Default.aspx?D= (accessed 27/05/2017).
12. Carlisle JB. Simulations of the effects of scheduled abdominal aortic aneurysm repair on survival. Anaesthesia 2015; 70: 666–78.
13. Carlisle JB, Danjoux G, Kerr K, Snowden C, Swart M. Validation of long-term survival prediction for scheduled abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with an independent calculator using only pre-operative variables. Anaesthesia 2015; 70: 654–65.
14. Howell SJ. Predicting survival after surgery: a matter of life and death. Anaesthesia 2015; 70: 637–40.
15. Sjöberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 2000; 20: 1–11.
16. High Court of Australia. Rogers v Whitaker. HCA 58 175 CLR 479, 1992. 1992. http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/court/12_Rogers_v_Whitaker.pdf (accessed 30/05/2017).
17. UK Supreme Court. In: UKSC, ed. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. 11, 2015. https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0136_Judgment.pdf (accessed 30/05/2017).
18. Donovan EE, Crook B, Brown LE, et al. An experimental test of medical disclosure and consent documentation: assessing patient comprehension, self-efficacy, and uncertainty. Communication Monographs 2014; 81: 293–60.
19. Schenker T, Wang F, Selig SJ, Ng R, Fernandez A. The impact of language barriers on documentation of informed consent at a hospital with on-site interpreter services. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2007; 22: 294–9.
20. Juckett G, Unger K. Appropriate use of medical interpreters. American Family Physician 2014; 90: 476–80.
21. British Medical Association and Law Society. Assessment of mental capacity: a practical guide for doctors and lawyers, 4th edn. Nottingham: Law Society Publishing, 2015.
22. Cavell R. Towards a better consent form. Journal of Law in Medicine 2007; 14: 326–38.