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.

Journal Section:
Original Paper
Keywords:
Audit process, Informed consent, Gastroscopy
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.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fgut.42.1.139
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.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1159%2F000067681
6.
Bassi A, Brown E, Kapoor N, et al: Dissatisfaction with consent for diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. Dig Dis 2002;20:275–279.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1159%2F000067680
7.
Isaacs P: What information should be given to patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopy. Dig Dis 2002;20:226–229.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1159%2F000067672
8.
Baker L: A new method for studying patient information needs and information seeking patterns. Top Health Educ Management 1995;16:19–28.
[PubMed]
9.
Levine E, Brandt L, Plumeri P: Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1995;41:448–452.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0016-5107%2805%2980002-1
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.
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1572-0241.1999.997_s.x
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.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1097%2F00042737-200112000-00010
13.
Pereira S, Hussaini S, Wilkinson M: Informed consent for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut 1995;37:151–153.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fgut.37.1.151
14.
Shepherd H, Bowman D, Hancock B, Anglin J, Hewett D: Postal consent for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut 2000;46:37–39.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fgut.46.1.37
15.
Dundee J, Wilson D: Amnesic action of midazolam. Anaesthesia 1980;35:459–461.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2044.1980.tb03822.x
© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
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.
2006
You do not currently have access to this content.