【2h】

The new consent form: is it any better?

机译:新的同意书:是否更好?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BACKGROUND: The UK Department of Health (DoH) introduced a new consent form into the National Health Service (NHS) in April 2002 following the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry. AIM: To compare the efficacy of the new consent form with the old on the quality of consent. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 11 questions was distributed to two groups of 100 patients before and after the introduction of the new consent form in the pre-assessment clinic at Glenfield Hospital, Leicester. RESULTS: Of the 11 questions, there were four significant differences that favoured the new consent form. These were: (i) success and benefits of the operation (old, 81%; new, 97%, P < 0.001; 95% CI, 7.3-24.4%); (ii) information that patients received about the operation from the doctor (old, 34%; new, 93%; P < 0.001; 95% CI, 46.7%-68.9%) and nurse (old, 21%; new, 67%; P < 0.001; 95% CI, 33.3-58.3%) in the pre-assessment clinic; (iii) postoperative recovery (old, 56%; new, 96%; P < 0.001; 95% CI, 30.0%-51.2%); and (iv) ability to list potential complications that could arise from the operation (old, 61%; new, 97%; P < 0.001; 95% CI, 26.4-52.6%). Despite the above differences, an overall assessment involving all questions failed to show a significant improvement with the new consent form (old, 57%; new, 67%; P = 0.264;, 95% CI, -35.6% to 12.6%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The new consent form resulted in improvement in some, but not all, aspects of consent and no question reached the ideal standard of 100%. We suggest a formatted consent form for procedures in conjunction with additional information.
机译:背景:英国卫生部(DoH)在布里斯托尔皇家医院调查之后于2002年4月向国家卫生局(NHS)引入了新的同意书。目的:比较新同意书与旧同意书在同意质量上的功效。方法:在莱斯特州格伦菲尔德医院的预评估门诊引入新的同意书之前和之后,向两组分别由100名患者组成的11个问题问卷。结果:在这11个问题中,有四个重大差异支持新的同意书形式。这些是:(i)手术的成功和好处(旧的为81%;新的为97%,P <0.001; 95%的CI为7.3-24.4%); (ii)患者从医生那里获得的有关手术的信息(旧的,34%;新的,93%; P <0.001; 95%的CI,46.7%-68.9%)和护士(旧的,21%;新的,67%) ; P <0.001; 95%CI,33.3-58.3%)。 (iii)术后恢复(旧,56%;新,96%; P <0.001; 95%CI,30.0%-51.2%); (iv)列出可能因手术而引起的潜在并发症的能力(旧的为61%;新的为97%; P <0.001; 95%的CI为26.4-52.6%)。尽管存在上述差异,但使用新的同意书后,涉及所有问题的总体评估未能显示出明显的改善(旧的为57%;新的为67%; P = 0.264; 95%的CI为-35.6%至12.6%)。讨论与结论:新的同意书形式在同意书的某些方面(但不是全部)上有所改善,而且没有一个问题达到100%的理想标准。我们建议将程序的格式同意书与其他信息一起使用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号