RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The informed consent of the patient is required before any medical intervention can be done. The impact of the provided information on the subsequent knowledge of the patient is regularly questioned. In the present investigation we aimed to determine the knowledge of the patients about invasive coronary angiography (CA) after they had been optimally vs. standard vs. not at all informed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 300 consecutive patients who were admitted for planned CA were included. Of these, 150 in-patients were informed by especially trained physicians one day before CA and 50 out-patients were informed by their general practitioner or cardiologist several days before admission. 100 in-patients were included before they were informed. In a standardized interview the predefined knowledge of the patients was assessed by an independent physician before CA in previously informed patients and after hospital admission in non-informed patients. RESULTS: The differences in knowledge between informed in- and out-patients were low. Especially their knowledge about potential complications was not different. Generally, patients could remember less serious complications better than life-threatening ones. Two previously informed patients (1â%) affirmed that they were not informed. The knowledge of non-informed patients was much lower than the knowledge of patients who had been informed. CONCLUSION: The knowledge and remembrance of patients after having detailed information about medical interventions is limited. Optimization of the informative interview did not really improve this knowledge. In contrast to non-informed patients the provided information did, however, increase the knowledge.
