White C S, Mason A C, Feehan M, Templeton P A
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore 21201, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Nov;165(5):1139-42. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.5.7572491.
Informed consent is now required for the majority of radiologic procedures, but few studies have evaluated the efficacy of informed consent protocols. We compared our standard consent protocol of obtaining consent prior to percutaneous lung biopsy with a modified protocol by using patients' recall of procedure risks after the biopsy as an indicator of patients' comprehension.
The study sample consisted of 50 patients who underwent percutaneous lung biopsy between December 1992 and June 1994. Twenty-seven patients received our standard informed consent procedure in which four important procedure risks were described briefly using our standard method. Twenty-three patients underwent a consent procedure that had the following modification. After the four procedure risks were described, the patient was tested verbally until all risks could be recited to the physician. This change required 5 additional min at most. In both protocols, efficacy of the procedure was evaluated by testing patient recall 4 hr after consent was obtained. We also assessed any effect that might have been introduced by differences between the groups, age, sex, time between consent and recall, and complications during the procedure.
Patients' recall was significantly better in the modified consent group than in the standard group (p = .005). This result could not be attributed to differences in age, sex, or time between consent and recall. There was a trend for improved recall in patients with complications. This trend did not appear to influence our principal finding.
The standard consent procedure for lung biopsy appears inadequate when patients' recall of procedure risks later is used as a measure of the patients' comprehension. Based on this study, the informed consent process may be improved substantially by teaching patients to recite the procedure risks to the physician as part of the informed consent protocol.
现在大多数放射学检查都需要获得知情同意,但很少有研究评估知情同意方案的效果。我们将经皮肺活检前获取同意的标准同意方案与一种改良方案进行了比较,以患者活检后对检查风险的回忆作为患者理解程度的指标。
研究样本包括1992年12月至1994年6月期间接受经皮肺活检的50例患者。27例患者接受了我们的标准知情同意程序,即使用我们的标准方法简要描述四个重要的检查风险。23例患者接受了如下改良的同意程序。在描述了四个检查风险后,对患者进行口头测试,直到患者能向医生复述所有风险。这一改变最多需要额外5分钟。在两种方案中,均在获得同意4小时后通过测试患者回忆来评估程序的效果。我们还评估了两组之间的差异、年龄、性别、同意与回忆之间的时间以及检查过程中的并发症可能产生的任何影响。
改良同意组患者的回忆明显优于标准组(p = 0.005)。这一结果不能归因于年龄、性别或同意与回忆之间的时间差异。有并发症的患者回忆有改善的趋势。这一趋势似乎并未影响我们的主要发现。
当以患者后来对检查风险的回忆作为衡量患者理解程度的指标时,肺活检的标准同意程序似乎并不充分。基于本研究,通过教导患者在知情同意方案中向医生复述检查风险,知情同意过程可能会得到显著改善。