A prospective audit on the validity of written informed consent prior to glaucoma surgery

An Asian perspective

Kui Dong Kang, Aman Shah B Abdul Majid, Jeehyun Kwag, Yeon Deok Kim, Hye Bin Yim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the validity of written informed consent taken from patients prior to undergoing glaucoma surgery by testing their ability to understand the information offered to them during the consent-taking process. Methods: Seventy-three patients were asked to complete a standardised confidential questionnaire after giving a written informed consent. Surgeons who were taking the consent were also requested to submit their self-evaluation form. Patients' understanding of the information they were given was evaluated using a standardised point scoring system. Results: Fifty patients (68.5%) agreed that they were given enough time to make an informed decision, while 67 doctors (91.8%) claimed that they had allocated enough time to explain the procedures. Fifty-two patients (71.2%) reported that they were given adequate information on the details or diagnosis of their problems, 65 patients (89.0%) on the details of the procedure and 69 patients (94.5%) on the risks and complications. Thirty-four patients (46.6%) were not sure, or refused information on the risks and complications of the procedure. Only half of the patients (57.5%) had overall moderate understanding of their surgical problem, and only 13 patients (17.8%) were able to demonstrate a good overall understanding of their surgical problem. Conclusions: Although most patients acknowledged that they received sufficient information to give consent, few could objectively recall the information given to them. This study thus raises some doubts on the validity and quality of written informed consent, and highlights the importance of giving clear information to patients undergoing glaucoma surgery.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)687-701
Number of pages15
JournalGraefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Volume248
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010 Jan 1
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Informed Consent
Glaucoma
Diagnostic Self Evaluation
Aptitude

Keywords

  • Glaucoma surgery
  • Informed consent
  • Understanding
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience

Cite this

A prospective audit on the validity of written informed consent prior to glaucoma surgery : An Asian perspective. / Kang, Kui Dong; Abdul Majid, Aman Shah B; Kwag, Jeehyun; Kim, Yeon Deok; Yim, Hye Bin.

In: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, Vol. 248, No. 5, 01.01.2010, p. 687-701.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4d2c726fe25e4c118dfa10205c098978,
title = "A prospective audit on the validity of written informed consent prior to glaucoma surgery: An Asian perspective",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the validity of written informed consent taken from patients prior to undergoing glaucoma surgery by testing their ability to understand the information offered to them during the consent-taking process. Methods: Seventy-three patients were asked to complete a standardised confidential questionnaire after giving a written informed consent. Surgeons who were taking the consent were also requested to submit their self-evaluation form. Patients' understanding of the information they were given was evaluated using a standardised point scoring system. Results: Fifty patients (68.5{\%}) agreed that they were given enough time to make an informed decision, while 67 doctors (91.8{\%}) claimed that they had allocated enough time to explain the procedures. Fifty-two patients (71.2{\%}) reported that they were given adequate information on the details or diagnosis of their problems, 65 patients (89.0{\%}) on the details of the procedure and 69 patients (94.5{\%}) on the risks and complications. Thirty-four patients (46.6{\%}) were not sure, or refused information on the risks and complications of the procedure. Only half of the patients (57.5{\%}) had overall moderate understanding of their surgical problem, and only 13 patients (17.8{\%}) were able to demonstrate a good overall understanding of their surgical problem. Conclusions: Although most patients acknowledged that they received sufficient information to give consent, few could objectively recall the information given to them. This study thus raises some doubts on the validity and quality of written informed consent, and highlights the importance of giving clear information to patients undergoing glaucoma surgery.",
keywords = "Glaucoma surgery, Informed consent, Understanding, Validity",
author = "Kang, {Kui Dong} and {Abdul Majid}, {Aman Shah B} and Jeehyun Kwag and Kim, {Yeon Deok} and Yim, {Hye Bin}",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00417-009-1209-0",
language = "English",
volume = "248",
pages = "687--701",
journal = "Albrecht von Graefes Archiv für Klinische und Experimentelle Ophthalmologie",
issn = "0065-6100",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A prospective audit on the validity of written informed consent prior to glaucoma surgery

T2 - An Asian perspective

AU - Kang, Kui Dong

AU - Abdul Majid, Aman Shah B

AU - Kwag, Jeehyun

AU - Kim, Yeon Deok

AU - Yim, Hye Bin

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To assess the validity of written informed consent taken from patients prior to undergoing glaucoma surgery by testing their ability to understand the information offered to them during the consent-taking process. Methods: Seventy-three patients were asked to complete a standardised confidential questionnaire after giving a written informed consent. Surgeons who were taking the consent were also requested to submit their self-evaluation form. Patients' understanding of the information they were given was evaluated using a standardised point scoring system. Results: Fifty patients (68.5%) agreed that they were given enough time to make an informed decision, while 67 doctors (91.8%) claimed that they had allocated enough time to explain the procedures. Fifty-two patients (71.2%) reported that they were given adequate information on the details or diagnosis of their problems, 65 patients (89.0%) on the details of the procedure and 69 patients (94.5%) on the risks and complications. Thirty-four patients (46.6%) were not sure, or refused information on the risks and complications of the procedure. Only half of the patients (57.5%) had overall moderate understanding of their surgical problem, and only 13 patients (17.8%) were able to demonstrate a good overall understanding of their surgical problem. Conclusions: Although most patients acknowledged that they received sufficient information to give consent, few could objectively recall the information given to them. This study thus raises some doubts on the validity and quality of written informed consent, and highlights the importance of giving clear information to patients undergoing glaucoma surgery.

AB - Purpose: To assess the validity of written informed consent taken from patients prior to undergoing glaucoma surgery by testing their ability to understand the information offered to them during the consent-taking process. Methods: Seventy-three patients were asked to complete a standardised confidential questionnaire after giving a written informed consent. Surgeons who were taking the consent were also requested to submit their self-evaluation form. Patients' understanding of the information they were given was evaluated using a standardised point scoring system. Results: Fifty patients (68.5%) agreed that they were given enough time to make an informed decision, while 67 doctors (91.8%) claimed that they had allocated enough time to explain the procedures. Fifty-two patients (71.2%) reported that they were given adequate information on the details or diagnosis of their problems, 65 patients (89.0%) on the details of the procedure and 69 patients (94.5%) on the risks and complications. Thirty-four patients (46.6%) were not sure, or refused information on the risks and complications of the procedure. Only half of the patients (57.5%) had overall moderate understanding of their surgical problem, and only 13 patients (17.8%) were able to demonstrate a good overall understanding of their surgical problem. Conclusions: Although most patients acknowledged that they received sufficient information to give consent, few could objectively recall the information given to them. This study thus raises some doubts on the validity and quality of written informed consent, and highlights the importance of giving clear information to patients undergoing glaucoma surgery.

KW - Glaucoma surgery

KW - Informed consent

KW - Understanding

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952098494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952098494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00417-009-1209-0

DO - 10.1007/s00417-009-1209-0

M3 - Article

VL - 248

SP - 687

EP - 701

JO - Albrecht von Graefes Archiv für Klinische und Experimentelle Ophthalmologie

JF - Albrecht von Graefes Archiv für Klinische und Experimentelle Ophthalmologie

SN - 0065-6100

IS - 5

ER -