The Quality of Informed Consent Forms-a Systematic Review and Critical Analysis

Julia Lühnen, Ingrid Mühlhauser, Anke Steckelberg, Julia Lühnen, Ingrid Mühlhauser, Anke Steckelberg

Abstract

Background: The patient's consent to a medical procedure must be preceded by a pre-procedure discussion with the physician that is documented on a standardized form. Evidence suggests that these forms lack information that would be relevant for an informed decision.

Methods: We carried out a systematic literature search up to February 2017 for evidence on the quality and efficacy of informed consent forms. The definition of criteria for the evaluation of meta-information, content, and presentation were derived from current guidelines for evidence-based health information. As an example, we analyzed consent forms currently in use in Germany for 10 medical interventions with regard to decisionally relevant content and intelligibility of format.

Results: Our literature search yielded 14 content analyses, which revealed that even some of the more important evaluative criteria were not always met, including information on benefits (9/14), risks (14/14), alternatives (11/14), the option of doing nothing (6/14), and numerical frequencies (2/14). All analyses indicated deficiencies in the content of the consent forms. We then analyzed 37 consent forms obtained from publishing companies (across Germany) and physician's practices in Hamburg. These forms were found to contain information on: the intervention (37/37), benefits (30/37), risks (37/37), alternatives (26/37), the option of doing nothing (4/37), numerical frequencies (10/37), the names of the authors (17/37), sources of information (0/37), and date of issue (21/37).

Conclusion: Both the evidence from foreign countries and our own analysis of the consent forms now in use in Germany revealed deficiencies, particularly in the communication of risks. New standards are needed to promote well-informed decision-making. Structural changes in the process of patient information and decision-making should be discussed.

Figures

Figure
Figure
Flow diagram according to the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews (13)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/6039714/bin/Dtsch_Arztebl_Int-115_0377_002.jpg
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/6039714/bin/Dtsch_Arztebl_Int-115_0377_003.jpg

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit