Informed consent for innovative surgery: a survey of patients and surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Unlike new drugs and medical devices, most surgical procedures are developed outside clinical trials and without regulatory oversight. Surgical professional organizations have discussed how new procedures should be introduced into practice without agreement on what topics informed consent discussions must include. To provide surgeons with more specific guidance, we wanted to determine what information patients and surgeons consider essential to disclose before an innovative surgical procedure. METHODS: Of those approached, 85 of 113 attending surgeons and 383 of 541 adult postoperative patients completed surveys; responses to the surveys were 75% and 71%, respectively. Using a 6-point Likert scale, participants rated the importance of discussing 16 types of information preoperatively for 3 techniques (standard open, laparoscopic, robotic) offered for a hypothetic partial hepatectomy. RESULTS: Compared with surgeons, patients placed more importance on nearly all types of information, particularly volumes and outcomes. For all 3 techniques, approximately 80% of patients indicated that they could not decide on surgery without being told whether it would be the surgeon's first time doing the procedure. When considering an innovative robotic surgery, a clear majority of both patients and surgeons agreed that it was essential to disclose the novel nature of the procedure, potentially unknown risks and benefits, and whether it would be the surgeon's first time performing the procedure. CONCLUSION: To promote informed decision-making and autonomy among patients considering innovative surgery, surgeons should disclose the novel nature of the procedure, potentially unknown risks and benefits, and whether the surgeon would be performing the procedure for the first time. When accurate volumes and outcomes data are available, surgeons should also discuss these with patients.

A randomized trial of two methods to disclose prognosis to surrogate decision makers in intensive care units.

RATIONALE: Surrogate decision makers and clinicians often have discordant perceptions about a patient's prognosis. There is a paucity of empirical data to guide communication about prognosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess: (1) whether numeric or qualitative statements more reliably convey prognostic estimates; and (2) whether surrogates believe physicians' prognostic estimates. METHODS: A total of 169 surrogate decision makers for intensive care unit patients were randomized to view 1 of 2 versions of a video portraying a simulated family conference involving a hypothetical patient. The videos varied only by whether prognosis was conveyed in numeric terms ("10% chance of surviving") or qualitative terms ("very unlikely" to survive). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed: (1) surrogates' personal estimates of the patient's prognosis; and (2) surrogates' understanding of the physician's prognostic estimate. Neither surrogates' personal estimates nor their understanding of the physician's prognostication differed when prognosis was conveyed numerically versus qualitatively (surrogates' estimate, 22 ± 23% chance of survival versus 26 ± 24%, P = 0.26; understanding of physician's estimate, 17 ± 22% chance of survival versus 16 ± 17%, P = 0.62). One in five surrogates estimated the patient's prognosis was greater than 20% more optimistic than the physician's prognostication. Less trust in physicians was associated with larger discrepancies between surrogates' personal estimates and their understanding of the physician's estimate. CONCLUSIONS: Neither numeric nor qualitative statements reliably convey news of a poor prognosis to surrogates in intensive care units. Many surrogates do not view physicians' prognostications as absolutely accurate. Factors other than ineffective communication may contribute to physician-surrogate discordance about prognosis.