RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Digitalization in the health system is a topic that is rapidly gaining popularity, and not only because of the current pandemic. As in many areas of daily life, digitalization is becoming increasingly important in the medical field amid the exponential rise in the use of computers and smartphones. This opens up new possibilities for optimizing patient education in the context of anesthesia. The main aim of this study was to assess the implementation of remote consent in Europe. METHODS: An online survey entitled "Digital online Patient Informed Consent for Anesthesia before Elective Surgery. Recent practice in Europe," with a total of 27 questions, was sent by the European Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) to their members in 47 European countries. To assess the effect of the economy on digitalization and legal status with regard to anesthesia consent, data were stratified based on gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC). RESULTS: In total, 23.1% and 37.2% of the 930 participants indicated that it was possible to obtain consent online or via telephone, respectively. This observation was more often reported in countries with high GDPPC levels than in countries with low GDPPC levels. Furthermore, 27.3% of the responses for simple anesthesia, 18.7% of the responses for complex anesthesia, and 32.2% of the responses for repeated anesthesia indicated that remote consent was in accordance with the law, and this was especially prevalent in countries with high GDPPC. Concerning the timing of consent, patients were informed at least one day before in 67.1% of cases for simple procedures and in 85.2% of cases for complex procedures. CONCLUSION: Even European countries with high GDPPC use remote informed consent only in a minority of cases, and most of the time for repeated anesthetic procedures. This might reflect the inconsistent legal situation and inhomogeneous medical technical structures across Europe.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: One undisputed benefit of digital support is the possibility of contact reduction, which has become particularly important in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is currently no study assessing the Europe-wide use of digital online pre-operative patient information or evaluation in the health sector. The aim of this study was to give an overview of the current status in Europe. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire covering the informed consent process was sent to members of the European Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (ESAIC) in 47 European countries (42,433 recipients/930 responses). Six questions related specifically to the practice in paediatrics. RESULTS: A total of 70.2% of the respondents indicated that it was not possible to obtain informed consent via the Internet in a routine setting, and 67.3% expressed that they did not know whether it is in line with the legal regulations. In paediatric anaesthesia, the informed consent of only one parent was reported to be sufficient by 77.6% of the respondents for simple interventions and by 63.8% for complex interventions. Just over 50% of the respondents judged that proof of identity of the parents was necessary, but only 29.9% stated that they ask for it in clinical routine. In the current situation, 77.9% would favour informed consent in person, whereas 60.2% could imagine using online or telephone interviews as an alternative to a face-to-face meeting if regulations were changed. Only 18.7% participants reported a change in the regulations due to the current pandemic situation. CONCLUSION: Whether informed consent is obtained either online or on the telephone in the paediatric population varies widely across Europe and is not currently implemented as standard practice. For high-risk patients, such as the specific cohort of children with congenital heart defects, wider use of telemedicine might provide a benefit in the future in terms of reduced contact and reduced exposure to health risks through additional hospital stays.