Issues with Consent in Stroke Patients

Mamo, JP

doi:10.7727/wimj.2013.134

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16 Generally, the ability of a patient to provide consent requires the capacity and willingness to absorb new information, the ability to adequately process provided information and to memorize it even in the context of a potentially lifethreatening situation. 6 However, there are numerous reports demonstrating difficulties of information transfer to patients in the context of acute or even life-threatening illness, [17][18][19] as psychological and physical stress as well as the level of education significantly influences the ability of patients to understand provided information. 20,21 Furthermore, preexisting or stroke-related acute neurological deficits, such as cognitive decline, speech disorders, reduced level of consciousness as well as disturbed vision, are relevant to the informed consent process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ability of patients with acute ischemic stroke to recall given information on intravenous thrombolysis: Results of a prospective multicenter study

Schuster

Essig

Daneshkhah

et al. 2023

European Stroke Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is an on label treatment for selected patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). As major bleeding or allergic shock may occur, the need to ensure patients’ informed consent for IVT is a matter of debate. Patients and methods: Prospective investigator-initiated multi-center observational study to assess the ability of AIS patients to recall information, provided by a physician during a standardized educational talk (SET) on IVT use. The recall of 20 pre-defined items was assessed in AIS after 60–90 min ( n = 93) or 23–25 h ( n = 40) after SET. About 40 patients with subacute stroke, 40 non-stroke patients, and 23 relatives of AIS patients served as controls, and were surveyed 60–90 min after SET. Results: Within 60–90 min after SET, AIS patients (median age 70 years, 31% female, median NIHSS score on admission 3 points) who were considered capable to provide informed consent recalled 55% (IQR 40%–66.7%) of the provided SET items. In multivariable linear regression analysis recapitulation by AIS patients was associated with their educational level (β = 6.497, p < 0.001), self-reported excitement level (β = 1.879, p = 0.011) and NIHSS score on admission (β = −1.186, p = 0.001). Patients with subacute stroke (70 years, 40% female, median NIHSS = 2) recalled 70% (IQR 55.7%–83.6%), non-stroke patients (75 years, 40% female) 70% (IQR 60%–78.7%), and AIS relatives (58 years, 83% female) 70% (IQR 60%–85%). Compared to subacute stroke patients, AIS patients less often recalled the frequency of IVT-related bleeding (21% vs 43%), allergic shock (15% vs 39%), and bleeding-related morbidity and mortality (44% vs 78%). AIS patients recalled 50% (IQR 42.3%–67.5%) of the provided items 23–25 h after SET. Conclusion: AIS patients eligible for IVT remember about half of all SET-items after 60–90 min or 23–25 h, respectively. The fact that the recapitulation of IVT-associated risks is particularly poor should be given special consideration.

show abstract