Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Electronic documentation of informed consent according to the Montgomery ruling in the surgical emergency unit setting

Jia Yin Tan
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.21-2-s39
Clin Med March 2021
Jia Yin Tan
AOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Introduction

The General Medical Council (GMC) states that consent is a partnership process between the patient and the doctor.1 Since the Montgomery judgement in 2015, the standards have been revolutionised to include material risks. Undoubtedly, informed consent has important implications in the surgeon–patient relationship and litigation. This audit aims to measure the decision-making record that contains key points of the consent discussion by comparing to the standards outlined in the Royal College of Surgeons guidance on consent, Consent: supported decision-making.2 We set an arbitrary target of 20% compliance rate within a 1-month period, which we felt would be achievable in the short time frame.

Methods

All surgeries performed in the general surgery department in March 2020 were identified. A total of 116 patients were assessed if any electronic documentation consistent with the Montgomery judgement of informed consent were done. Consequently, electronic consent templates specific to three surgeries were introduced. These were diagnostic laparoscopic appendicectomy, incision and drainage of abscess and of perianal abscess. The templates were designed to include name, age, occupation (where applicable), material risks, and the template allows for additional risks discussed to be added. Interventions included an audit presentation at the local mortality and morbidity meeting, two email reminders, focused teaching to each individual and incorporating it in the induction handbook in August 2020. A re-audit was performed for the three specific operations between the 11 July and 12 August 2020. 66 surgeries applicable to this audit were identified. The usage of these templates was assessed and presented at the local meeting.

Results

In the first cycle, 0% of surgeries performed in the department had electronic consent documentations. Following one improvement cycle, we saw a 25.7% (p=0.0001) improvement in compliance rate of the templates for three specific surgeries.

Conclusion

Electronic consent templates significantly improved compliance with our audit standard across our three most commonly performed emergency surgical procedures. The templates offer a dynamic approach to patient-centred care. Not only is it standardised and economical, it provides substantial evidence to defend against patient dissatisfaction or lawsuit. Unfortunately, a signature in the consent form is not equivalent to a valid informed consent and would not be classified as legitimate evidence to stand in the court of law.2 As part of a multicycle audit process, further interventions are in the process to ensure 100% compliance rate of the electronic consent templates. These include a feedback form for doctors to gauge the barriers in using the templates, a talk from a medico-legal lawyer, departmental education, and further email reminders. There is also scope to create templates for a wider range of operations.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2021. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. General Medical Council
    . Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. London: GMC, 2008. www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance_contents.asp [Accessed 16 September 2020].
  2. ↵
    1. Royal College of Surgeons
    . Consent: supported decision-making. London: RCS, 2018. www.rcseng.ac.uk/standards-and-research/standards-and-guidance/good-practice-guides/consent [Accessed 16 September 2020].
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Electronic documentation of informed consent according to the Montgomery ruling in the surgical emergency unit setting
Jia Yin Tan
Clinical Medicine Mar 2021, 21 (Suppl 2) 39; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.21-2-s39

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Electronic documentation of informed consent according to the Montgomery ruling in the surgical emergency unit setting
Jia Yin Tan
Clinical Medicine Mar 2021, 21 (Suppl 2) 39; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.21-2-s39
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusion
    • Conflicts of interest
    • References
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Pre-admission anti-coagulation does not improve all-cause mortality in geriatric COVID-19 patients
  • Lessons learnt from the use of CPAP for patients with type 1 respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia in a district general hospital outside a critical care setting
  • Real-time collection of data on patients with COVID-19 and thrombosis and/or haemorrhage has aided the development of thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines at the Royal Surrey County Hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic
Show more COVID-19

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians