Uninformed consent: Do medicine residents lack the proper framework for code status discussions?

Adam F. Binder, Grace C. Huang, Mary K. Buss

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conversations eliciting patient preferences about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are among the most common examples of informed consent. However, this is rarely recognized and therefore may not include all key elements of informed consent, namely, details and benefits of the procedure, significant risks involved, likelihood of the outcome, and alternative therapeutic options. OBJECTIVE: Assess the content of code status discussions as reported by residents to examine whether residents meet requirements of informed consent. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, single-center survey study. SETTING: Internal medicine residents at an academic medical center. INTERVENTION: Medicine residents were surveyed and data were anonymously collected. MEASUREMENTS: Content of code status discussions and knowledge of CPR outcomes. RESULTS: Among 100 respondents, 66% have code status discussions with most patients upon hospital admission. Two main barriers to discussing code status were lack of time (49%) and lack of rapport (29%). Only 8% reported discussing all 5 elements of informed consent. Less than 10% of the residents correctly answered questions testing knowledge regarding outcomes after cardiac arrest. In logistical regression analyses, residents who included all key elements of informed consent reported more confidence that they provided the information needed for patients to make an informed decision (odds ratio 1.7 [95% confidence interval: 1.2-2.3]). CONCLUSIONS: Resident conversations regarding CPR are insufficient in the 5 key elements of informed consent. Framing code status discussions as examples of informed consent may be an effective strategy for educating residents or may improve the quality of these discussions, potentially leading to better patient decisions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)111-116
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Hospital Medicine
Volume11
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Informed Consent
Medicine
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Patient Preference
Internal Medicine
Heart Arrest
Odds Ratio
Regression Analysis
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Assessment and Diagnosis
  • Care Planning
  • Fundamentals and skills
  • Leadership and Management

Cite this

Uninformed consent : Do medicine residents lack the proper framework for code status discussions? / Binder, Adam F.; Huang, Grace C.; Buss, Mary K.

In: Journal of Hospital Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 2, 01.02.2016, p. 111-116.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Binder, Adam F. ; Huang, Grace C. ; Buss, Mary K. / Uninformed consent : Do medicine residents lack the proper framework for code status discussions?. In: Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 11, No. 2. pp. 111-116.
@article{6b967fac524a4d87b0f754329ed1e240,
title = "Uninformed consent: Do medicine residents lack the proper framework for code status discussions?",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Conversations eliciting patient preferences about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are among the most common examples of informed consent. However, this is rarely recognized and therefore may not include all key elements of informed consent, namely, details and benefits of the procedure, significant risks involved, likelihood of the outcome, and alternative therapeutic options. OBJECTIVE: Assess the content of code status discussions as reported by residents to examine whether residents meet requirements of informed consent. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, single-center survey study. SETTING: Internal medicine residents at an academic medical center. INTERVENTION: Medicine residents were surveyed and data were anonymously collected. MEASUREMENTS: Content of code status discussions and knowledge of CPR outcomes. RESULTS: Among 100 respondents, 66{\%} have code status discussions with most patients upon hospital admission. Two main barriers to discussing code status were lack of time (49{\%}) and lack of rapport (29{\%}). Only 8{\%} reported discussing all 5 elements of informed consent. Less than 10{\%} of the residents correctly answered questions testing knowledge regarding outcomes after cardiac arrest. In logistical regression analyses, residents who included all key elements of informed consent reported more confidence that they provided the information needed for patients to make an informed decision (odds ratio 1.7 [95{\%} confidence interval: 1.2-2.3]). CONCLUSIONS: Resident conversations regarding CPR are insufficient in the 5 key elements of informed consent. Framing code status discussions as examples of informed consent may be an effective strategy for educating residents or may improve the quality of these discussions, potentially leading to better patient decisions.",
author = "Binder, {Adam F.} and Huang, {Grace C.} and Buss, {Mary K.}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jhm.2497",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "111--116",
journal = "Journal of Hospital Medicine",
issn = "1553-5606",
publisher = "Frontline Medical Communications",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Uninformed consent

T2 - Do medicine residents lack the proper framework for code status discussions?

AU - Binder, Adam F.

AU - Huang, Grace C.

AU - Buss, Mary K.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Conversations eliciting patient preferences about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are among the most common examples of informed consent. However, this is rarely recognized and therefore may not include all key elements of informed consent, namely, details and benefits of the procedure, significant risks involved, likelihood of the outcome, and alternative therapeutic options. OBJECTIVE: Assess the content of code status discussions as reported by residents to examine whether residents meet requirements of informed consent. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, single-center survey study. SETTING: Internal medicine residents at an academic medical center. INTERVENTION: Medicine residents were surveyed and data were anonymously collected. MEASUREMENTS: Content of code status discussions and knowledge of CPR outcomes. RESULTS: Among 100 respondents, 66% have code status discussions with most patients upon hospital admission. Two main barriers to discussing code status were lack of time (49%) and lack of rapport (29%). Only 8% reported discussing all 5 elements of informed consent. Less than 10% of the residents correctly answered questions testing knowledge regarding outcomes after cardiac arrest. In logistical regression analyses, residents who included all key elements of informed consent reported more confidence that they provided the information needed for patients to make an informed decision (odds ratio 1.7 [95% confidence interval: 1.2-2.3]). CONCLUSIONS: Resident conversations regarding CPR are insufficient in the 5 key elements of informed consent. Framing code status discussions as examples of informed consent may be an effective strategy for educating residents or may improve the quality of these discussions, potentially leading to better patient decisions.

AB - BACKGROUND: Conversations eliciting patient preferences about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are among the most common examples of informed consent. However, this is rarely recognized and therefore may not include all key elements of informed consent, namely, details and benefits of the procedure, significant risks involved, likelihood of the outcome, and alternative therapeutic options. OBJECTIVE: Assess the content of code status discussions as reported by residents to examine whether residents meet requirements of informed consent. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, single-center survey study. SETTING: Internal medicine residents at an academic medical center. INTERVENTION: Medicine residents were surveyed and data were anonymously collected. MEASUREMENTS: Content of code status discussions and knowledge of CPR outcomes. RESULTS: Among 100 respondents, 66% have code status discussions with most patients upon hospital admission. Two main barriers to discussing code status were lack of time (49%) and lack of rapport (29%). Only 8% reported discussing all 5 elements of informed consent. Less than 10% of the residents correctly answered questions testing knowledge regarding outcomes after cardiac arrest. In logistical regression analyses, residents who included all key elements of informed consent reported more confidence that they provided the information needed for patients to make an informed decision (odds ratio 1.7 [95% confidence interval: 1.2-2.3]). CONCLUSIONS: Resident conversations regarding CPR are insufficient in the 5 key elements of informed consent. Framing code status discussions as examples of informed consent may be an effective strategy for educating residents or may improve the quality of these discussions, potentially leading to better patient decisions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956778716&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84956778716&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jhm.2497

DO - 10.1002/jhm.2497

M3 - Article

C2 - 26471452

AN - SCOPUS:84956778716

VL - 11

SP - 111

EP - 116

JO - Journal of Hospital Medicine

JF - Journal of Hospital Medicine

SN - 1553-5606

IS - 2

ER -