Background Hip fractures are a common acute trauma presentation that if requiring surgery, should be performed within 48 hours. Consenting the patient is an important element of the pathway from admission to operating theatre and errors can lead to delayed procedures, medico-legal exposure and may represent a loss of patient autonomy. The aim of this project was to evaluate areas for improvement in our consenting process for patients with capacity and trial new strategies to determine which achieved the greatest improvement. Methods Following a baseline measurement (n=24), deficiencies were noted in three key process measures of clarity of documentation, failure to record procedure-specific risks and not offering a copy of the consent form to the patient. Two quality improvement cycles then followed using targeted teaching for doctors performing the consenting process. Results Cycle 1 (n=26) following targeted teaching demonstrated improved clarity, with a reduction in abbreviations from 38% to 20%, while more than doubling the documentation of discussion of key procedure-specific risks from 31% to 72%. More patients were offered a copy of their consent form, rising from 12% to 48%. Cycle 2 (n=24) saw the introduction of pre-printed “risk of procedure” stickers. Although clarity measures continued to improve, improvements in pre-procedure risk documentation remained broadly static while the number of forms being offered to patients starkly declined to 8%. Conclusions Our project would suggest that while pre-printed stickers can be useful memory aids, specific teaching on consenting produces the greatest benefit. The usage of such tools should therefore be limited, as adjuncts only to detailed training.
Background: Consenting patients for trauma procedures following hip fracture is a key stage in the treatment pathway from admission to the operating theatre. Errors in this process can result in delayed procedures which may negatively impact patient recovery. The aim of this project was to identify and reduce errors in our consenting process for patients with capacity. Methods: Consent forms for all adult patients with capacity admitted for surgical repair of traumatic hip fracture were reviewed over a 4-week period. The baseline measurement (n = 24), identified errors in three key process measures: clarity of documentation, failure to record procedure-specific risks and not offering a copy of the consent form to the patient. Pre-printed stickers and targeted teaching were then introduced as quality improvement measures. Their impact was evaluated over subsequent 4-week review of the same patient demographic, with further refinement of these interventions being carried out and re-evaluated for a final cycle. Results: Cycle 1 (n = 26) following targeted teaching demonstrated a reduction in abbreviations from 38 to 20%, while doubling the documentation of discussion of procedure-specific risks from 31 to 72%. More patients were offered a copy of their consent form, rising from 12 to 48%. Cycle 2 (n = 24) saw the introduction of pre-printed "risk of procedure" stickers. Although clarity measures continued to improve, quality of pre-procedure risk documentation remained static while the number of forms being offered to patients fell to 8%. Conclusions: Our project would suggest that while pre-printed stickers can be useful memory aids, specific teaching on consenting produces the greatest benefit. The usage of such tools should therefore be limited, as adjuncts only to specific training.
Background: Consenting patients for trauma procedures following hip fracture is a key stage in the treatment pathway from admission to the operating theatre. Errors in this process can result in delayed procedures which may negatively impact patient recovery. The aim of this project was to identify and reduce errors in our consenting process for patients with capacity. Methods: Consent forms for all adult patients with capacity admitted for surgical repair of traumatic hip fracture were reviewed over a 4-week period. The baseline measurement (n=24), identified errors in three key process measures: clarity of documentation, failure to record procedure-specific risks and not offering a copy of the consent form to the patient. Pre-printed stickers and targeted teaching were then introduced as quality improvement measures. Their impact was evaluated over subsequent 4-week review of the same patient demographic, with further refinement of these interventions being carried out and re-evaluated for a final cycle.Results: Cycle 1 (n=26) following targeted teaching demonstrated a reduction in abbreviations from 38% to 20%, while doubling the documentation of discussion of procedure-specific risks from 31% to 72%. More patients were offered a copy of their consent form, rising from 12% to 48%. Cycle 2 (n=24) saw the introduction of pre-printed “risk of procedure” stickers. Although clarity measures continued to improve, quality of pre-procedure risk documentation remained static while the number of forms being offered to patients fell to 8%.Conclusions: Our project would suggest that while pre-printed stickers can be useful memory aids, specific teaching on consenting produces the greatest benefit. The usage of such tools should therefore be limited, as adjuncts only to specific training.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.