Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Consent for spine surgery: an observational study.

Authors
  • Li Ching Ng, Angela1
  • McRobb, Lucinda S2
  • White, Sarah J3
  • Cartmill, John A2
  • Cyna, Allan M4
  • Seex, Kevin1
  • 1 Macquarie Neurosurgery, Macquarie University Clinic, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. , (Australia)
  • 2 Department of Clinical Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. , (Australia)
  • 3 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. , (Australia)
  • 4 Discipline of Acute Care Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. , (Australia)
Type
Published Article
Journal
ANZ Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Wiley (Blackwell Publishing)
Publication Date
Jun 01, 2021
Volume
91
Issue
6
Pages
1220–1225
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1111/ans.16348
PMID: 33021031
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

The tension between the ideal of informed consent and the reality of the process is under-investigated in spine surgery. Guidelines around consent imply a logical, plain-speaking process with a clear endpoint, agreement and signature yet surgeons' surveys and patient interviews suggest that surgeons' explanation is anecdotally variable and patient understanding remains poor. To obtain a more authentic reflection of practice, spine surgeons obtaining 'informed consent' for non-instrumented spine surgery were studied via video recording and risk/benefit discussions were analysed. A prospective observational study was conducted at a single neurosurgical institution. Twelve video recordings involving six surgeons obtaining an informed consent for non-instrumented spine surgery were transcribed verbatim and blindly analysed using descriptive quantification and linguistic ethnography. Ten (83%) consultations discussed surgical benefit but less than half (41%) quantified the likelihood of benefit from surgery. The most discussed risks were nerve damage or paralysis (92%), bleeding (92%), infection (92%), cerebrospinal fluid leak (83%) and bowel and bladder dysfunction (75%). Surgeons commonly used a quantitative statement of risk (58%) but only half of the risks were explained in words patients were likely to understand. This study highlights inconsistencies in the way spine surgeons explain risks and obtain informed consent for 'simple' spine procedures in a real-world setting. There are wide disparities in the provision of informed consent, which may be encountered in other surgical fields. Direct observation and qualitative analysis can provide insights into the limitations of current informed consent practice and help guide future practice. © 2020 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times