Skip Navigation


International Journal for Quality in Health Care Advance Access originally published online on July 14, 2008
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2008 20(5):352-357; doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzn025
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/5/352    most recent
mzn025v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brezis, M.
Right arrow Articles by Tauber, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brezis, M.
Right arrow Articles by Tauber, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved

Quality of informed consent for invasive procedures

Mayer Brezis, Sarah Israel, Avital Weinstein-Birenshtock, Pnina Pogoda, Ayelet Sharon and Renana Tauber

Center for Clinical Quality and Safety, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, 91120 Jerusalem, Israel

Objective. To assess quality of informed consent among patients undergoing procedures and patient's preferences about decision-making.

Design. Cross-sectional survey of hospitalized patients about informed consent before surgery or other procedures. Preference for decision-making was elicited in hospitalized and ambulatory patients.

Setting. Large academic general hospital and 10 general clinics, over the years 2002–04.

Intervention. Data of initial survey were presented at staff meetings, recommending asking patients to restate what was explained to them.

Main outcome measures. Rate of patient's recall for explanations on risks and alternative options; rate of patients preferring shared, autonomous and paternalistic modes of decision-making; degree of satisfaction from the decision-making.

Results. Half of the patients did not recall receiving explanations about risks and two-third did not remember discussion of alternative options. The intervention failed, <10% of patients being asked to re-state what was explained to them. Expectations about decision varied: ~60% favored shared decision, nearly 20% preferred autonomous decision and the remainder wanted physicians to make decisions. Satisfaction was rated as good or very good by 80% of patients.

Conclusions. Most patients do not remember receiving explanations about risks or alternatives for procedures, and physicians resist attempts to improve informed consent. Tools should be developed to measure the quality of consent. Since patients significantly differ in their preferred mode of decision-making, the informed consent should be patient-specific.

Keywords: informed consent, quality of care

Address reprint requests to: Mayer Brezis, Center for Clinical Quality and Safety, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, 91120 Jerusalem, Israel. Tel: +972-2-6777110; Fax: +972-2-6439730; E-mail: brezis{at}vms.huji.ac.il

Accepted for publication June 16, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.