ENTtoday
  • Home
  • COVID-19
  • Practice Focus
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Departments
    • Issue Archive
    • TRIO Best Practices
      • Allergy
      • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
      • Head and Neck
      • Laryngology
      • Otology/Neurotology
      • Pediatric
      • Rhinology
      • Sleep Medicine
    • Career Development
    • Case of the Month
    • Everyday Ethics
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Medical Education
    • Online Exclusives
    • Practice Management
    • Resident Focus
    • Rx: Wellness
    • Special Reports
    • Tech Talk
    • Viewpoint
    • What’s Your O.R. Playlist?
  • Literature Reviews
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Events
    • Featured Events
    • TRIO Meetings
  • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Triological Society
    • Advertising Staff
    • Subscribe
  • Advertise
    • Place an Ad
    • Classifieds
    • Rate Card
  • Search

The Evolution of Informed Consent

by Mary Beth Nierengarten • December 7, 2017

  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version
©  Leigh Prather  / shutterstock.com

© Leigh Prather / shutterstock.com

The informed consent process is ubiquitous throughout the healthcare system. Clinicians who offer care, particularly those who perform invasive procedures, and researchers seeking to answer questions are required to ensure that patients understand the potential risks and benefits that result from the procedures they are offered. These patients are asked to acknowledge their understanding by signing a document—an informed consent form.

You Might Also Like

  • A New Look at Informed Consent: Recent guidelines prompt patient-centered approach
  • How Physicians Can Help Make Sure Patients are Accurately Informed
  • How Informed Are Your Patients?
  • The Revolution and Evolution of Free Flaps in Facial Reconstructive Surgery
Explore This Issue
December 2017

But what constitutes understanding? This question stands at the crux of the ever-evolving definition of informed consent. Initially, the focus steered toward the “consent” aspect of the process; current interpretations tend to focus on how “informed” the patient should be.

Since the 1950s, the notion of reasonableness has been critical to the process of informed consent. To date, approximately half of U.S. states have legally adopted the most current definition of informed consent, which essentially indicates that a physician is required to disclose information on the benefits and risks of a procedure that a “reasonable person” would want to know. In the other states, informed consent is still based on a “professional standard,” in which physicians are required to inform patients only of the risks and benefits of a procedure that another physician would find reasonable.

This is important for court cases in which malpractice is adjudicated based on the legal standard of informed consent of that particular state, but what does it mean in clinical practice or the research arena?

Christine Grady, RN, PhD, chief of the department of bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md., recently described the changing face of informed consent (N Eng J Med. 2017;376:856–867). She stated that informed consent has become more regulated and legalistic in recent years, which seems to have led to a shift from prioritizing patient protection to protecting institutions and providers. “This has led to a problem in the way we do informed consent in that it has become more complicated and driven more by institutional concerns and less focused on helping the person get the information they need to decide whether to participate in an ENT procedure or in a clinical study,” she said.

Paul Hong, MDIt is hard to say what specific information should be shared with patients during surgical consent … Should we mention all possible risks, even the super rare ones that could unnecessarily worry patients? Or, should we simply mention the common ones?” —Paul Hong, MD

Gaps in Physician and Patient Understanding

“The informed consent process is complex since it involves human interaction,” said Paul Hong, MD, MSc, an associate professor in the division of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “It is hard to say what specific information should be shared with patients during surgical consent and whether we should be more standard when discussing surgery.”

Whether relying on the professional standard or the “reasonable person” criterion for informed consent, the question of how much information to share with patients to fulfill the obligation of informed consent remains controversial. “Should we mention all possible risks, even the super rare ones that could unnecessarily worry patients? Or should we simply mention the common ones?” asked Dr. Hong.

According to William McVisk, legal counsel for the American Board of Otolaryngology, clinicians are typically only required to inform patients about the most significant risks of a procedure and not about the many remote risks. “Most procedures have a lot of risks, and you’re not required to inform the patient of every single one of those risks, because you could spend a couple of hours doing so,” he said, underscoring that his perspective is that of an attorney who practices in a state in which informed consent is defined by the professional standard.

One challenge that physicians should keep in mind, according to Dr. Hong, is evidence that patients often get different information from different sources and can have poor recall as to what they’ve been told about the potential risks and benefits of a procedure. “The challenge is that patients hear different things from different surgeons, and they also likely hear and read different information from family and friends and on the internet, which could lead to confusion and poor understanding of their surgical procedure,” he said.

Dr. Hong and his colleagues found evidence of this disparity in a prospective study they published in 2016 that evaluated recall of surgical risks and benefits in 84 parents of children who underwent consultation for adenotonsillectomy and/or tympanostomy tube insertion (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155:332–339). The study found that only one-third of parents recalled the risks of surgery discussed during the informed consent consultation. An even more important issue, said Dr. Hong, is the finding that the risks and benefits discussed by one surgeon often differed from those mentioned by a different surgeon.

He suggested that surgeons should adapt their discussions around informed consent to each individual patient depending on need. “I think the surgeon should take each interaction separately and try to determine how much (or less) information should be shared with the patient so that they are well informed,” he said.

McVisk advised otolaryngologists to make sure they inform each patient of the important risks of the procedure and to document in the patient’s chart or medical record that they discussed the risks, noting which risks were discussed.

Dr. Grady suspects that physicians could use more education on why informed consent is important. During a recent experience she had talking to a group of surgeons about informed consent, she found that while most surgeons understood that a document needed to be signed prior to a procedure, the surgeons appreciated little beyond that.

“Maybe the form is just one little piece of what they should be doing when they are talking to their patients,” she said, adding that they should also be giving the patient the opportunity to understand the details of what is going on, and giving him or her a choice about it.


Mary Beth Nierengarten is a freelance medical writer based in Minnesota.

Milestones in Informed Consent

1900: Written contracts between researchers and participants are used in Walter Reed’s Yellow Fever Experiment, an intentional exposure study of the mechanism of yellow fever transmission. This is the first documented instance of use of the informed consent process in a major research study.

1914: Mary Schloendorff sues the Society of New York Hospitals for performing surgery on her without prior consent. She won the case, which established that the patient was an active participant in the treatment decision process.

1947: Nuremberg Code requires informed consent for all experiments, and specifies that experiments must be scientifically necessary and conducted by qualified personnel. Additionally, human trials should be preceded by animal studies and surveys of a disease’s natural history.

1957: Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. Board of Trustees. This malpractice case is the first time the phrase “informed consent” is used.

1962: Kefauver-Harris amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act are passed and signed into law in response to the thalidomide tragedy; from this point forward, clinical drug testing requires informed consent.

1972: Canterbury v. Spence determines the Informed Consent/Reasonable Person Standard, which mandates that physicians disclose information a reasonable person would want to know. This standard is currently adopted in about 50% of U.S. states.

Source: JAMA. 2016;315:2063–2064; NIH

Pages: 1 2 3 | Multi-Page

Filed Under: Departments, Home Slider, Practice Management Tagged With: informed consent, patient consentIssue: December 2017

You Might Also Like:

  • A New Look at Informed Consent: Recent guidelines prompt patient-centered approach
  • How Physicians Can Help Make Sure Patients are Accurately Informed
  • How Informed Are Your Patients?
  • The Revolution and Evolution of Free Flaps in Facial Reconstructive Surgery

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

The Laryngoscope
Ensure you have all the latest research at your fingertips; Subscribe to The Laryngoscope today!

Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
Open access journal in otolaryngology – head and neck surgery is currently accepting submissions.

Classifieds

View the classified ads »

TRIO Best Practices

View the TRIO Best Practices »

Top Articles for Residents

  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Why More MDs, Medical Residents Are Choosing to Pursue Additional Academic Degrees
  • What Physicians Need to Know about Investing Before Hiring a Financial Advisor
  • Tips to Help You Regain Your Sense of Self
  • Should USMLE Step 1 Change from Numeric Score to Pass/Fail?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • Experts Delve into Treatment Options for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux
    • Weaning Patients Off of PPIs
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • New Developments in the Management of Eustachian Tube Dysfunction
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Eustachian Tuboplasty: A Potential New Option for Chronic Tube Dysfunction and Patulous Disease
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Did You Receive COVID-19 Relief? Here Are Reporting Considerations for 2021
    • Otolaryngology Experts Share Best Practices in Five Areas
    • How Climate Change May Be Affecting Sleep Patterns for Adults and Children
    • Laryngologists Discuss Tough Tracheostomy Choices During COVID-19 Era
    • Head and Neck Cancer: Experts Discuss How to Improve Surgery Quality and Value

Polls

Did you receive funding from the CARES Act or Paycheck Protection Program?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Visit: The Triological Society • The Laryngoscope • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology

Wiley
© 2021 The Triological Society. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN 1559-4939

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
This site uses cookies: Find out more.