Challenge of achieving truly individualised informed consent in therapeutic endoscopy
Frontline Gastroenterology, ISSN: 2041-4145, Vol: 15, Issue: 3, Page: 183-189
2023
- 9Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures9
- Readers9
Article Description
Objective Guidance covering informed consent in endoscopy has been refined in the UK following the obstetric case of Nadine Montgomery, and in light of updated General Medical Council guidance. All risks likely to be material to the patient must be explored, as well as alternatives to the procedure. Despite this, departments and endoscopists still struggle to meet the current standards. In this article, we explore the challenges encountered in achieving individualised consent in therapeutic endoscopy through real-life scenarios. Methods Five realistic therapeutic endoscopy (hepatobiliary) scenarios are described, followed by presentation of possible or ideal approaches, with references related to existing literature in this field. Results The vignettes allow consideration of how to approach difficult consent challenges, including anxiety and information overload, urgency during acute illness, failure to disclose the risk of death, the role of trainees and intraprocedural distress under conscious sedation. Conclusions The authors conclude that a high degree of transparency is required while obtaining consent for therapeutic endoscopy accompanied by full documentation, involvement of relatives in nearly all cases, and clarity around the presence of trainees who may handle the scope. A greater focus on upskilling trainees in the consent process for therapeutic endoscopy is required.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85176447651&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2023-102545; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38665798; https://fg.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/flgastro-2023-102545; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2023-102545; https://fg.bmj.com/content/15/3/183
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know