Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Nov;108(11):451-6.
doi: 10.1177/0141076815604494. Epub 2015 Oct 2.

Patient perceptions and recall of consent for regional anaesthesia compared with consent for surgery

Roxaneh Zarnegar  1 , Matthew R D Brown  2 , Matthew Henley  3 , Victoria Tidman  4 , Ahilan Pathmanathan  5
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Patient perceptions and recall of consent for regional anaesthesia compared with consent for surgery

Roxaneh Zarnegar et al. J R Soc Med. 2015 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: In Britain, consent for surgery is documented using a Department of Health form signed by the surgeon and the patient. In contrast, anaesthetic procedures have no formalised consent process. Evidence on the process of consent for regional anaesthesia, and patient perceptions of this, is scarce outside obstetric practice. We aimed to determine patient recall and perceptions of consent for interscalene brachial plexus block and compared this to surgical consent for shoulder arthroplasty.

Design: Prospective observational survey.

Setting: A specialist musculoskeletal centre, UK.

Participants: Forty-six patients (female:male 30:16, mean age 61 years) undergoing shoulder arthroplasty with interscalene brachial plexus block.

Main outcome measures: Recall and understanding of consent for regional anaesthesia and surgery was examined using a semi-structured questionnaire 1-2 days after arthroplasty. Surgical consent forms and discussions recorded by the anaesthetist were examined in participants' medical notes to compare against the level of recall. Analysis to determine statistical significance was conducted using McNemar's test.

Results: Recall of surgical risks was overall significantly better than recall of brachial plexus block risks. Compared to their recollections of surgical risk, patients remembered fewer specific risks for brachial plexus block (p < 0.001). There were more patients unable to recall any risks when questioned about brachial plexus block than about their surgery (p < 0.05). One-third of patients did not regard the consent discussion about regional anaesthesia as important as consent for surgery and over one-quarter had not recognised the preoperative discussion about the brachial plexus block as a consent process similar to that conducted for surgery.

Conclusions: Fundamental misunderstandings about the consent process are prevalent. Future work in this area should seek to investigate how documentation of the consent process and patients' understanding of consent for regional anaesthesia can be improved.

Keywords: consent; intercalene brachial plexus block; regional anaesthesia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Eyal N. Informed consent. In: Zalta EN (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 edition). See http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/informed-consent/.
    1. Singh A, Kelly C, O’Brien T, Wilson J, Warner JJP. Ultrasound-guided interscalene block anesthesia for shoulder arthroscopy: a prospective study of 1319 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: 2040–2046. - PubMed
    1. Lenters TR, Davies J, Matsen F. The types and severity of complications associated with interscalene brachial plexus block anesthesia: local and national evidence. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2007; 16: 379–387. - PubMed
    1. Department of Health of the United Kingdom. Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment, 2nd edn London: Department of Health, 2009.
    1. The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Consent for Anaesthesia. London: The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, 2006.

Publication types