Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices

Edwin G. Levine, Lawrence J. Brandt, Peter Plumeri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We mailed a survey to the domestic membership of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in an attempt to investigate how endoscopists obtained informed consent and the effect of these practices on medical malpractice claims. One thousand two hundred thirty-two (23.8%) surveys were returned. We determined that although informed consent is obtained in 98.5% of endoscopic cases, 30% of physicians leave the task of obtaining such consent to hospital or office personnel. Although endoscopists tend to be complete in terms of describing the risks of procedures to patients, all risks are not revealed equally; some complications, for example, the risk for requiring a colostomy, are disclosed by relatively few physicians, perhaps revealing a higher comfort level with a particular procedure, such as colonoscopy. Like-wise, endoscopists generally explain the benefits of and alternatives to procedures, but they do not explain the more hazardous alternatives. Documentation of the informed consent process is an area in which physicians could be more thorough. Twenty-one percent of respondents had been sued, and in 42% of these instances, the informed consent process was an issue. Lawsuits in general (38%) changed the way respondents obtained consent, especially (64%) when this process had been an issue in the suit. No correlation was found between either the thoroughness of the informed consent process or the status of the person who obtained consent and the likelihood of being sued.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)448-452
Number of pages5
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume41
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1995

Fingerprint

Informed Consent
Physicians
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Colostomy
Malpractice
Colonoscopy
Documentation
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Informed consent : a survey of physician outcomes and practices. / Levine, Edwin G.; Brandt, Lawrence J.; Plumeri, Peter.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 41, No. 5, 1995, p. 448-452.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Levine, Edwin G. ; Brandt, Lawrence J. ; Plumeri, Peter. / Informed consent : a survey of physician outcomes and practices. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1995 ; Vol. 41, No. 5. pp. 448-452.
@article{41db1574d13044cd852d01578c75d940,
title = "Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices",
abstract = "We mailed a survey to the domestic membership of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in an attempt to investigate how endoscopists obtained informed consent and the effect of these practices on medical malpractice claims. One thousand two hundred thirty-two (23.8{\%}) surveys were returned. We determined that although informed consent is obtained in 98.5{\%} of endoscopic cases, 30{\%} of physicians leave the task of obtaining such consent to hospital or office personnel. Although endoscopists tend to be complete in terms of describing the risks of procedures to patients, all risks are not revealed equally; some complications, for example, the risk for requiring a colostomy, are disclosed by relatively few physicians, perhaps revealing a higher comfort level with a particular procedure, such as colonoscopy. Like-wise, endoscopists generally explain the benefits of and alternatives to procedures, but they do not explain the more hazardous alternatives. Documentation of the informed consent process is an area in which physicians could be more thorough. Twenty-one percent of respondents had been sued, and in 42{\%} of these instances, the informed consent process was an issue. Lawsuits in general (38{\%}) changed the way respondents obtained consent, especially (64{\%}) when this process had been an issue in the suit. No correlation was found between either the thoroughness of the informed consent process or the status of the person who obtained consent and the likelihood of being sued.",
author = "Levine, {Edwin G.} and Brandt, {Lawrence J.} and Peter Plumeri",
year = "1995",
doi = "10.1016/S0016-5107(05)80002-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "448--452",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Informed consent

T2 - a survey of physician outcomes and practices

AU - Levine, Edwin G.

AU - Brandt, Lawrence J.

AU - Plumeri, Peter

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - We mailed a survey to the domestic membership of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in an attempt to investigate how endoscopists obtained informed consent and the effect of these practices on medical malpractice claims. One thousand two hundred thirty-two (23.8%) surveys were returned. We determined that although informed consent is obtained in 98.5% of endoscopic cases, 30% of physicians leave the task of obtaining such consent to hospital or office personnel. Although endoscopists tend to be complete in terms of describing the risks of procedures to patients, all risks are not revealed equally; some complications, for example, the risk for requiring a colostomy, are disclosed by relatively few physicians, perhaps revealing a higher comfort level with a particular procedure, such as colonoscopy. Like-wise, endoscopists generally explain the benefits of and alternatives to procedures, but they do not explain the more hazardous alternatives. Documentation of the informed consent process is an area in which physicians could be more thorough. Twenty-one percent of respondents had been sued, and in 42% of these instances, the informed consent process was an issue. Lawsuits in general (38%) changed the way respondents obtained consent, especially (64%) when this process had been an issue in the suit. No correlation was found between either the thoroughness of the informed consent process or the status of the person who obtained consent and the likelihood of being sued.

AB - We mailed a survey to the domestic membership of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in an attempt to investigate how endoscopists obtained informed consent and the effect of these practices on medical malpractice claims. One thousand two hundred thirty-two (23.8%) surveys were returned. We determined that although informed consent is obtained in 98.5% of endoscopic cases, 30% of physicians leave the task of obtaining such consent to hospital or office personnel. Although endoscopists tend to be complete in terms of describing the risks of procedures to patients, all risks are not revealed equally; some complications, for example, the risk for requiring a colostomy, are disclosed by relatively few physicians, perhaps revealing a higher comfort level with a particular procedure, such as colonoscopy. Like-wise, endoscopists generally explain the benefits of and alternatives to procedures, but they do not explain the more hazardous alternatives. Documentation of the informed consent process is an area in which physicians could be more thorough. Twenty-one percent of respondents had been sued, and in 42% of these instances, the informed consent process was an issue. Lawsuits in general (38%) changed the way respondents obtained consent, especially (64%) when this process had been an issue in the suit. No correlation was found between either the thoroughness of the informed consent process or the status of the person who obtained consent and the likelihood of being sued.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029066764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029066764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0016-5107(05)80002-1

DO - 10.1016/S0016-5107(05)80002-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 7615222

AN - SCOPUS:0029066764

VL - 41

SP - 448

EP - 452

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 5

ER -