Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

How Thorough Is the Process of Informed Consent prior to Outpatient Gastroscopy?

A Study of Practice in a United Kingdom District Hospital
Woodrow S.R. · Jenkins A.P.

Author affiliations

Department of Gastroenterology, Princess Royal University Hospital, Farnborough, Kent, UK

Related Articles for ""

Digestion 2006;73:189–197

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: February 05, 2006
Accepted: February 10, 2006
Published online: July 28, 2006
Issue release date: July 2006

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 6

ISSN: 0012-2823 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9867 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/DIG

Abstract

Background/Aims: Informed consent for outpatient gastroscopy should involve many elements and many patients may not have spoken to an endoscopist beforehand. The aim was to audit the completeness of the consent process in patients undergoing outpatient gastroscopy. Methods: This is a retrospective study in which a 37-point questionnaire was sent to 200 patients who had undergone outpatient gastroscopy. Questions covered information given before and on the day of the procedure. Results: The response rate was 71.5% (143/200) and 141 questionnaires were analysed. Before the day of the procedure: 92.2% understood why they were having a gastroscopy, 90.8% had the procedure explained to them and of these 96.1% understood the explanation. 48.9% were told the risks of the procedure, 51.8% were given the opportunity to decline, but only 11.3% were told of an alternative to the procedure and 24.1% of possible consequences of not having the test. On arrival at the endoscopy unit: 92.2% of respondents had the procedure explained to them but only 55.4% received an explanation from the endoscopist. 45.4% were told the risks of the procedure, 48.2% were given the opportunity to decline. 39.0% did not read the consent form before signing and, of those that did, 98.7% understood it. Conclusion: Nearly all the patients understood the nature of gastroscopy and the reasons for the test before attending; however, there was poor explanation of the risks of gastroscopy and of its alternatives. Approximately half the patients were not given the opportunity to decline gastroscopy either before or on the day of the procedure.

© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Seeking Patient’s Consent: The Ethical Considerations. General Medical Council, 1999.
  2. British Society of Gastroenterology: Guidelines for informed consent for endoscopic procedures. Guidelines in gastroenterology. London, British Society of Gastroenterology, 1999 (http.www.bsg.org.uk/guidelines/ consent.html).
  3. Neale G: Reducing risks in gastroenterological practice. Gut 1998;42:139–142.
  4. Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment. London, Department of Health, 2001.
  5. Triantafyllou K, Stanciu C, Kruse A, et al: Informed consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A 2002 ESGE survey. Dig Dis 2002;20:280–283.
  6. Bassi A, Brown E, Kapoor N, et al: Dissatisfaction with consent for diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. Dig Dis 2002;20:275–279.
  7. Isaacs P: What information should be given to patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopy. Dig Dis 2002;20:226–229.
  8. Baker L: A new method for studying patient information needs and information seeking patterns. Top Health Educ Management 1995;16:19–28.
  9. Levine E, Brandt L, Plumeri P: Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1995;41:448–452.
  10. Proctor D, Price J, Minhas BS, et al: Patient recall and appropriate timing for obtaining informed consent for endoscopic procedures. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;94:967–971.
    External Resources
  11. Nicklin J: Improving the quality of written information for patients. Nursing Standard 2002;16:39–44.
  12. Mayberry M, Mayberry J: Towards better informed consent in endoscopy: a study of information and consent processes in gastroscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Eur Jour Gastro Hep 2001;13:1467–1476.
  13. Pereira S, Hussaini S, Wilkinson M: Informed consent for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut 1995;37:151–153.
  14. Shepherd H, Bowman D, Hancock B, Anglin J, Hewett D: Postal consent for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut 2000;46:37–39.
  15. Dundee J, Wilson D: Amnesic action of midazolam. Anaesthesia 1980;35:459–461.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: February 05, 2006
Accepted: February 10, 2006
Published online: July 28, 2006
Issue release date: July 2006

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 6

ISSN: 0012-2823 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9867 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/DIG


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.