Assessing the adequacy of procedure-specific consent forms in orthopaedic surgery against current methods of operative consent.

INTRODUCTION: This is an audit of patient understanding following their consent for orthopaedic procedures and uses information on new Orthoconsent forms endorsed by the British Orthopaedic Association as the set standard. The objectives were to: (i) assess whether patients' understanding of knee arthroscopy (KA) and total knee replacement (TKR) at the point of confirming their consent reaches the set standard; and (ii) to ascertain whether issuing procedure-specific Orthoconsent forms to patients can improve this understanding. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective audit using questionnaires consisting of 26 (for KA) or 35 (for TKR) questions based on the appropriate Orthoconsent form in a department of orthopaedic surgery within a UK hospital. Participants were 100 patients undergoing KA and 60 patients undergoing TKR between February and July 2008. Participants were identified from sequential operating lists and all had capacity to give consent. During the first audit cycle, consent was discussed with the patient and documented on standard yellow NHS Trust approved generic consent forms. During the second audit cycle, patients were additionally supplied with the appropriate procedure-specific consent form downloaded from which they were required to read at home and sign on the morning of surgery. RESULTS: Knee arthroscopy patients consented with only the standard yellow forms scored an average of 56.7%, rising to 80.5% with use of Orthoconsent forms. Similarly, total knee replacement patients' averages rose from 57.6% to 81.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Providing patients with an Orthoconsent form significantly improves knowledge of their planned procedure as well as constituting a more robust means of information provision and consent documentation.

Improving the quality of procedure-specific operation reports in orthopaedic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to: (i) assess whether handwritten operation reports for hip hemi-arthroplasties adhere to The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE) guidelines on surgical documentation; (ii) improve adherence to these guidelines with procedure-specific computerised operation reports; and (iii) improve the quality of documentation in surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three parameters based on RCSE guidelines were used to score hip hemi-arthroplasty operation reports. The first audit cycle was performed retrospectively to assess 50 handwritten operation reports, and the second cycle prospectively to assess 30 new computerised procedure-specific operation reports produced for hip hemi-arthroplasties. Eighty patients undergoing hip hemi-arthroplasty in a department of orthopaedic surgery within a UK hospital between September 2007 and August 2008 formed the study cohort. RESULTS: The main outcome measure was the average scores attained by handwritten versus computerised operation reports. Handwritten reports scored an average of 58.7%, rising significantly (P < 0.01) to 92.8% following the introduction of detailed, computerised proformas for the operation note. Adherence to each RCSE parameter was improved. CONCLUSIONS: Computerised proformas reduce variability between different operation reports for the same procedure and increase their content in line with RCSE recommendations. The proformas also constitute a more robust means of operative documentation.