BackgroundA properly conducted surgical informed consent process (SIC) allows patients to authorize an invasive procedure with full comprehension of relevant information including involved risks. Current practice of SIC may differ from the ideal situation. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether SIC practiced by Dutch general surgeons and residents is adequate with involvement of all required elements.MethodsAll members of the Dutch Society of Surgery received an online multiple choice questionnaire evaluating various aspects of SIC.ResultsA total of 453 questionnaires obtained from surgeons and residents representing >95% of all Dutch hospitals were eligible for analysis (response rate 30%). Knowledge on SIC was limited as only 55% was familiar with all three basic elements (‘assessment of preconditions’, ‘provision of information’ and ‘stage of consent’). Residents performance was inferior compared to surgeons regarding most aspects of daily practice of SIC. One in 6 surgeons (17%) had faced a SIC-related complaint in the previous five years possibly illustrating suboptimal SIC implementation in daily surgical practice.ConclusionsThe quality of the current SIC process is far from optimal in the Netherlands. Surgical residents require training aimed at improving awareness and skills. The SIC process is ideally supported using modern tools including web-based interactive programs. Improvement of the SIC process may enhance patient satisfaction and may possibly reduce the number of complaints.

No abstract

BackgroundSuccessfully completing a surgical informed consent process is an important element of the preoperative consult. A previous study of Dutch general surgeons demonstrated that the implementation of SIC did not meet acceptable standards. However, the quality of the SIC process in the orthopedic surgical or plastic surgical arena is unknown.MethodsFollowing ethical approval, an online survey investigating specifics of surgical informed consent was performed among members of the Dutch Scientific Association of Orthopedic Surgeons and the Dutch Society for Plastic Surgery.ResultsA total of 335 responses from a majority of departments of orthopedic (86 %) and plastic surgery (78 %) were eligible for analysis. Scores on knowledge were poor as only 50 % recognized the three basic elements of surgical informed consent (competence, exchange of information and consent). The orthopedic group used more tools in the surgical informed consent process, such as instruction movies and websites or specialized nursing staff, compared to plastic surgery (orthopedic: 31-50 % vs. plastic: 6-30 %, p = 0.05- < 0.001). In contrast, surgical informed consent forms were used more frequently by the plastic surgical group (orthopedic 21 % vs. plastic:42 % p < 0.001). Control of the efficacy of the surgical informed consent process was low, 36 % in both groups. One in every seven orthopedic or plastic surgeons was faced with an official surgical informed consent-related complaint in the previous five years.ConclusionsSimilar to general surgeons, Dutch orthopedic and plastic surgeons demonstrate poor knowledge and skills regarding surgical informed consent. Increased awareness, better training and use of modern tools including standard forms and online software programs will improve the SIC process and will optimize patient care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13037-016-0110-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Literature suggests that patient-informing process prior to obtaining surgical informed consent (SIC) does not function well. This study aimed to provide insight into the current practice of SIC in the Netherlands. Methods This is a prospective, observational, and multicenter study, conducted in one academic and two nonacademic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Audio recordings were made during outpatient consultations with patients presenting with Dupuytren Disease. The recorded informing process was scored according to a checklist. Written documentation of the SIC process in the patient's chart was compared to these scored checklists. Time spent on SIC during the consultations was also recorded. Results A total of 41 outpatient consultations were included in the study. Consultations were conducted by 25 plastic surgeons and their residents. Average time spent on SIC was 55.6% of the total consultation time. Considerable variation was observed concerning the amount and type of information given and discussed. In 59% of the consultations, discrepancies were observed between written documentation of consultations and audio recordings. Information on treatment risks, the postoperative period, and the operating surgeon was addressed the least. Conclusion Despite a relatively large part of the consultation time being spent on SIC, patients received scarce information concerning treatment risks, postoperative period, and who their operating surgeon would be. Discrepancies were observed between the written documentation of SIC and information recorded on the audio recordings. This occurred predominantly in one hospital that used a pre-made list of 'discussed information' in its digital patient chart.