Dissatisfaction with Consent for Diagnostic Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Introduction: Little is known about patients’ perspectives on the amount of information they receive prior to diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopies. Our unit’s policy for obtaining consent consists of initially posting an information leaflet to the patient followed by subsequent explanation of the procedure on arrival for the test. The consent form is signed by the patient immediately prior to the test. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted to assess patient perception and satisfaction with the amount of information received before diagnostic endoscopy. Results: The information was obtained from 127 of the 175 questionnaires that were distributed. Whereas 97% had read the information leaflet, only 52% had read the consent form before signing it. 64/127(51%) felt dissatisfied because they would have wanted more information while 3% were dissatisfied because they would have liked less information relating to one or more aspects of the test. Dissatisfaction was higher in patients who had not read the consent form (p < 0.001) and those with some formal education (p = 0.01). Conclusions: Patients who did not read the consent form were more dissatisfied. Strategies to improve the rate of reading this document may increase patient satisfaction.

Related collections

Most cited references 2

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Informed consent for colonoscopy. A prospective study.

R H Spiro, Routbort Mark (1990)

Central to the nature of the physician-patient relationship is how fully patients are informed about their disease and prognosis and how active a role they take in deciding treatment; the "autonomy" and "paternalistic" models represent current poles of physician behavior. While informed consent has become ubiquitous in medical practice, it is not clear to what extent the value of patient autonomy has entered into everyday medical decisions. To evaluate informed consent, we prospectively surveyed 102 outpatients scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy and 16 of their physicians. The colonoscopy examination is straightforward and offers an optimal opportunity for patient participation in decision making. We found that most patients wanted guidance from their physicians and most physicians did not view the patient as autonomous. The more traditional parentalistic model continues to influence the physician-patient relationship, at least for this technical endeavor.

0 comments Cited 4 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Survey of informed consent for endoscopy.

A Thuraisingam (2001)

0 comments Cited 4 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (publisher-id): DDI

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Dig Dis

Journal ID (doi): 10.1159/issn.0257-2753

Title: Digestive Diseases

Publisher: S. Karger AG

ISBN: 978-3-8055-7529-4

ISBN: 978-3-318-00933-0

ISSN (Print): 0257-2753

ISSN (Electronic): 1421-9875

Publication date Subscription-year: 2002

Publication date (Print): 2002

Publication date (Electronic): 14 January 2003

Volume: 20

Issue: 3-4

Pages: 275-279

Affiliations

University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK

Article

Publisher ID: 67680 Other ID: Dig Dis 2002;20:275–279

DOI: 10.1159/000067680

PubMed ID: 12577940

SO-VID: 2471a87e-9562-4763-a690-64e72fad5ad9

License:

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

History

Page count

Figures: 1, Tables: 2, References: 23, Pages: 5

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 6

See all cited by

- Version 1
- Version 1

Call for Papers: Artificial Intelligence in Gastroenterology

Submit here before May 31, 2024