James Booker, Jack Penn, Nicola Newall, David Rowland, Siddharth Sinha, Hani J Marcus
{"title":"开发和早期评估用于评估手术同意过程中个性化风险承受能力的新型工具。","authors":"James Booker, Jack Penn, Nicola Newall, David Rowland, Siddharth Sinha, Hani J Marcus","doi":"10.1080/02688697.2024.2413453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The legal interpretation of consent has transitioned over the last decade. Surgeons must identify what patients value to individualise surgical consent. This presents a considerable challenge during busy ward rounds or outpatient clinics. We aimed to develop and evaluate a novel risk tolerance tool to aid surgical consent.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluated the views of adult, elective surgical patients from a single centre. Attitudes to the existing surgical consent process were assessed (n = 48) and responses underwent thematic analysis. From these responses and a stakeholder focus group, a novel risk tolerance tool was developed. The risk tool was evaluated using questionnaires in 25 pre-operative patients. Post-operatively, the same cohort were followed-up with a telephone clinic 6-8 weeks after discharge.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall patients were satisfied with the current consent process, but negative themes emerged including that it is generalised, impersonal, and time pressured. The developed risk tool contained six domains: death, pain, loss of physical function, loss of cognitive function, need for repeat medical interventions, and social disability. Loss of physical function (mean = 34.0, SD = 12.8) and loss of cognitive function (mean = 34.0, SD = 6.1) had lowest risk tolerance, and need for repeat medical interventions (mean = 18.8, SD = 10.9) had the highest risk tolerance. Thirteen (93%) patients had a positive experience of the consent process vs 85% of patients in pre-consent tool cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The tool demonstrated good patient acceptability and patient reported experience. The tool gathered data that may enhance understanding of patient risk tolerance and personalise the surgical consent process.</p>","PeriodicalId":9261,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and early Evaluation of a novel tool for assessment of individualised risk tolerance during surgical consent.\",\"authors\":\"James Booker, Jack Penn, Nicola Newall, David Rowland, Siddharth Sinha, Hani J Marcus\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02688697.2024.2413453\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The legal interpretation of consent has transitioned over the last decade. Surgeons must identify what patients value to individualise surgical consent. This presents a considerable challenge during busy ward rounds or outpatient clinics. We aimed to develop and evaluate a novel risk tolerance tool to aid surgical consent.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluated the views of adult, elective surgical patients from a single centre. Attitudes to the existing surgical consent process were assessed (n = 48) and responses underwent thematic analysis. From these responses and a stakeholder focus group, a novel risk tolerance tool was developed. The risk tool was evaluated using questionnaires in 25 pre-operative patients. Post-operatively, the same cohort were followed-up with a telephone clinic 6-8 weeks after discharge.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall patients were satisfied with the current consent process, but negative themes emerged including that it is generalised, impersonal, and time pressured. The developed risk tool contained six domains: death, pain, loss of physical function, loss of cognitive function, need for repeat medical interventions, and social disability. Loss of physical function (mean = 34.0, SD = 12.8) and loss of cognitive function (mean = 34.0, SD = 6.1) had lowest risk tolerance, and need for repeat medical interventions (mean = 18.8, SD = 10.9) had the highest risk tolerance. Thirteen (93%) patients had a positive experience of the consent process vs 85% of patients in pre-consent tool cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The tool demonstrated good patient acceptability and patient reported experience. The tool gathered data that may enhance understanding of patient risk tolerance and personalise the surgical consent process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2024.2413453\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2024.2413453","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Development and early Evaluation of a novel tool for assessment of individualised risk tolerance during surgical consent.
Purpose: The legal interpretation of consent has transitioned over the last decade. Surgeons must identify what patients value to individualise surgical consent. This presents a considerable challenge during busy ward rounds or outpatient clinics. We aimed to develop and evaluate a novel risk tolerance tool to aid surgical consent.
Methods: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluated the views of adult, elective surgical patients from a single centre. Attitudes to the existing surgical consent process were assessed (n = 48) and responses underwent thematic analysis. From these responses and a stakeholder focus group, a novel risk tolerance tool was developed. The risk tool was evaluated using questionnaires in 25 pre-operative patients. Post-operatively, the same cohort were followed-up with a telephone clinic 6-8 weeks after discharge.
Results: Overall patients were satisfied with the current consent process, but negative themes emerged including that it is generalised, impersonal, and time pressured. The developed risk tool contained six domains: death, pain, loss of physical function, loss of cognitive function, need for repeat medical interventions, and social disability. Loss of physical function (mean = 34.0, SD = 12.8) and loss of cognitive function (mean = 34.0, SD = 6.1) had lowest risk tolerance, and need for repeat medical interventions (mean = 18.8, SD = 10.9) had the highest risk tolerance. Thirteen (93%) patients had a positive experience of the consent process vs 85% of patients in pre-consent tool cohort.
Conclusions: The tool demonstrated good patient acceptability and patient reported experience. The tool gathered data that may enhance understanding of patient risk tolerance and personalise the surgical consent process.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Neurosurgery is a leading international forum for debate in the field of neurosurgery, publishing original peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality, along with comment and correspondence on all topics of current interest to neurosurgeons worldwide.
Coverage includes all aspects of case assessment and surgical practice, as well as wide-ranging research, with an emphasis on clinical rather than experimental material. Special emphasis is placed on postgraduate education with review articles on basic neurosciences and on the theory behind advances in techniques, investigation and clinical management. All papers are submitted to rigorous and independent peer-review, ensuring the journal’s wide citation and its appearance in the major abstracting and indexing services.