Survey of informed consent for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Jeanette Newton, Robert Hawes, Priya Jamidar, James Harig, Glen Lehman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Prior to performance of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, physicians are generally required to apprise patients of potential risks, benefits, and alternatives. Components of the informed consent process require that: (1) consent be voluntary; (2) the patient be sufficiently mentally capable to engage in rational decision-making; and (3) "adequate information" be conveyed. Controversies reflected in both medical and legal literature concern the definition of "adequate information." To sample current opinion regarding consent for both diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP, members of the Indiana Gut Club and Midwest Gut Club were polled. From this group of academic and private practice physicians, 81 completed evaluations were compiled. Greater than 90% of physicians believed that pancreatitis and pancreatitis/bleeding/perforation must be mentioned for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP, respectively. There was variation of opinion as to whether patients must be informed of potential need for surgery, prolonged hospital stay, or death. The performing physician was felt to be ultimately responsible for obtaining consent, although other health-care team members, excluding a secretary, could participate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1714-1718
Number of pages5
JournalDigestive diseases and sciences
Volume39
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 1994

Fingerprint

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Informed Consent
Physicians
Pancreatitis
Patient Care Team
Private Practice
Length of Stay
Decision Making
Hemorrhage
Surveys and Questionnaires
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • complications
  • diagnostic ERCP
  • informed consent
  • therapeutic ERCP

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Survey of informed consent for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. / Newton, Jeanette; Hawes, Robert; Jamidar, Priya; Harig, James; Lehman, Glen.

In: Digestive diseases and sciences, Vol. 39, No. 8, 01.08.1994, p. 1714-1718.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Newton, Jeanette ; Hawes, Robert ; Jamidar, Priya ; Harig, James ; Lehman, Glen. / Survey of informed consent for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. In: Digestive diseases and sciences. 1994 ; Vol. 39, No. 8. pp. 1714-1718.
@article{d24d276bfd9241e2bf850a89576d134b,
title = "Survey of informed consent for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography",
abstract = "Prior to performance of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, physicians are generally required to apprise patients of potential risks, benefits, and alternatives. Components of the informed consent process require that: (1) consent be voluntary; (2) the patient be sufficiently mentally capable to engage in rational decision-making; and (3) {"}adequate information{"} be conveyed. Controversies reflected in both medical and legal literature concern the definition of {"}adequate information.{"} To sample current opinion regarding consent for both diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP, members of the Indiana Gut Club and Midwest Gut Club were polled. From this group of academic and private practice physicians, 81 completed evaluations were compiled. Greater than 90{\%} of physicians believed that pancreatitis and pancreatitis/bleeding/perforation must be mentioned for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP, respectively. There was variation of opinion as to whether patients must be informed of potential need for surgery, prolonged hospital stay, or death. The performing physician was felt to be ultimately responsible for obtaining consent, although other health-care team members, excluding a secretary, could participate.",
keywords = "complications, diagnostic ERCP, informed consent, therapeutic ERCP",
author = "Jeanette Newton and Robert Hawes and Priya Jamidar and James Harig and Glen Lehman",
year = "1994",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/BF02087782",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "1714--1718",
journal = "Digestive Diseases and Sciences",
issn = "0163-2116",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Survey of informed consent for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

AU - Newton, Jeanette

AU - Hawes, Robert

AU - Jamidar, Priya

AU - Harig, James

AU - Lehman, Glen

PY - 1994/8/1

Y1 - 1994/8/1

N2 - Prior to performance of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, physicians are generally required to apprise patients of potential risks, benefits, and alternatives. Components of the informed consent process require that: (1) consent be voluntary; (2) the patient be sufficiently mentally capable to engage in rational decision-making; and (3) "adequate information" be conveyed. Controversies reflected in both medical and legal literature concern the definition of "adequate information." To sample current opinion regarding consent for both diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP, members of the Indiana Gut Club and Midwest Gut Club were polled. From this group of academic and private practice physicians, 81 completed evaluations were compiled. Greater than 90% of physicians believed that pancreatitis and pancreatitis/bleeding/perforation must be mentioned for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP, respectively. There was variation of opinion as to whether patients must be informed of potential need for surgery, prolonged hospital stay, or death. The performing physician was felt to be ultimately responsible for obtaining consent, although other health-care team members, excluding a secretary, could participate.

AB - Prior to performance of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, physicians are generally required to apprise patients of potential risks, benefits, and alternatives. Components of the informed consent process require that: (1) consent be voluntary; (2) the patient be sufficiently mentally capable to engage in rational decision-making; and (3) "adequate information" be conveyed. Controversies reflected in both medical and legal literature concern the definition of "adequate information." To sample current opinion regarding consent for both diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP, members of the Indiana Gut Club and Midwest Gut Club were polled. From this group of academic and private practice physicians, 81 completed evaluations were compiled. Greater than 90% of physicians believed that pancreatitis and pancreatitis/bleeding/perforation must be mentioned for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP, respectively. There was variation of opinion as to whether patients must be informed of potential need for surgery, prolonged hospital stay, or death. The performing physician was felt to be ultimately responsible for obtaining consent, although other health-care team members, excluding a secretary, could participate.

KW - complications

KW - diagnostic ERCP

KW - informed consent

KW - therapeutic ERCP

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028068619&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028068619&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF02087782

DO - 10.1007/BF02087782

M3 - Article

C2 - 8050323

AN - SCOPUS:0028068619

VL - 39

SP - 1714

EP - 1718

JO - Digestive Diseases and Sciences

JF - Digestive Diseases and Sciences

SN - 0163-2116

IS - 8

ER -