Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 13 de 13
Filter
Add more filters










Publication year range
1.
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen ; 143(6)2023 04 25.
Article in Norwegian | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37097251
2.
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen ; 142(14)2022 10 11.
Article in English, Norwegian | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36226422

Subject(s)
Coercion , Physicians , Humans
4.
6.
Int J Law Psychiatry ; 77: 101716, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34130053

ABSTRACT

The Norwegian Mental Health Act allows involuntary treatment for patients who lack consent capacity, however it allows only administration of pharmaceutical treatment and nutrition and not ECT. In lack of specific regulations, the legal access to ECT without valid consent has been grounded on the general rule of necessity in the Norwegian Penal code. This restriction and lack of legal regulation has implications for patients' rights and legal security. The study's aim was to assess the documented consent provided by patients for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), whether ECT was administered without valid consent or under coercion, and the documented reasons, and ultimately compare practice with the legal requirements. We analysed systematically all the relevant medical records for hospitalised patients and outpatients receiving ECT during 2011-2016. We categorized data from these two groups into seven defined categories describing the attitude and quality of the consents to the ECT (or lack thereof). 378 patients received 498 ECT series´. The noted consents varied from treatment based on request (54 treatments), consent upon recommendation (209 treatments), consent after hesitation (88 treatments), consent presumed or noted without specification (114 treatments), to no consent (21 treatments) whereof the majority with documented coercion applied (19 treatments). All cases of ECT without consent referred to a "plea of necessity". The remaining treatments (12) lacked notifications specifying the consent (or attitude) expressed. Specific notes on the patient's capacity to consent for the respective ECT were generally lacking. This study indicates a large spread in patients´ acceptance and valid consent to ECT. The main reason for administering ECT without consent and/or against patients' will was for life-saving reasons. Such treatments were justified legal under a plea of necessity in the Penal Code or lacked noted legal justification. The legal vacuum for ECT without a valid consent needs to be addressed as this kind of disputed treatment is used in some cases.


Subject(s)
Electroconvulsive Therapy , Humans , Informed Consent , Medical Records , Patient Rights , Retrospective Studies
10.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ; 28(1): 51, 2020 Jun 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32513204

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical research in severely ill or injured patients is required to improve healthcare but may be challenging to perform in practice. The aim of this study was to analyse barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies. METHODS: Data from critically ill patients considered for inclusion in an observational study of venous thromboembolism in Norway were analysed. This included quantitative and qualitative information from the screening log, consent forms and research notes. RESULTS: Among 279 eligible critically ill patients, 204 (73%) were omitted from the study due to challenges and barriers in the inclusion process. Reasons for omission were categorised as practical in 133 (65%), medical in 31 (15%), and legal or ethical in 40 (20%) of the patients. Among 70 included patients, 29 (41%) consents were from patients and 41 (59%) from their next of kin. Several challenges were described herein; these included whether patients were competent to give consent, and which next of kin that should represent the patient. Furthermore, some included patients were unable to recall what they have consented, and some appeared unable to separate research from treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers and challenges in the inclusion process led to the omission of near three out of four eligible patients. This analysis provided information about where the problem resides and may be solved. The majority of challenges among included patients were related to issues of autonomy and validity of consent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03405766).


Subject(s)
Critical Illness/therapy , Dalteparin/therapeutic use , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Informed Consent/ethics , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Selection/ethics , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Norway
11.
Patient Saf Surg ; 13: 24, 2019.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31285756

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Respect for patient autonomy and the requirement of informed consent is an essential basic patient right. It is constituted through international conventions and implemented in health law in Norway and most other countries. Healthcare without informed consent is only allowed under specific exceptions, which requires a record in the patient charts. In this study, we investigated how surgeons recorded decisions in situations where the elderly patient's ability to provide a valid informed consent was questionable or clearly missing. METHOD: We investigated all medical records of patients admitted to surgical departments in a Norwegian large academic emergency hospital over a period of 38 days (approximately 5000 patients). We selected records of patients above the age of 70 (570 patients) and searched through these 570 medical records for any noted clear indications of inability to consent such as "do not understand", "confused" etc. (102 patients). We read through all the medical records on these 102 patients noting any recordings on lack of informed consent, any recordings on reasoning and process hereto. We also took note whether there were clear indications on the use of coercion. RESULTS: None of the 102 included patients´ charts contained legally valid recorded assessments (for example related to the patients´ competence to consent) when patients without the ability to consent were admitted and provided healthcare.Some charts contained records that the patient resisted treatment, thus indicating treatment with coercion. In these situations, we did not find any documentation related to legal requirements that regulate the use of coercion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We found a substantial lack of compliance with the legal requirements that apply when obtaining valid informed consent. There are many possible reasons for this: Lack of knowledge of the legal requirements, disagreement about the rules, or that it is simply not possible to comply with the extensive formal and material legal requirements in clinical practice. The results do not point out whether the appropriate measures are amending the law, educating and requiring more compliance from surgeons, or both.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...