Not just for surgeons: A qualitative exploration of the surgical consent process

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Collegian Pub Date : 2023-11-22 DOI:10.1016/j.colegn.2023.10.001
Therese M. Gardiner , Sharon Latimer , Jayne Hewitt , Brigid M. Gillespie
{"title":"Not just for surgeons: A qualitative exploration of the surgical consent process","authors":"Therese M. Gardiner ,&nbsp;Sharon Latimer ,&nbsp;Jayne Hewitt ,&nbsp;Brigid M. Gillespie","doi":"10.1016/j.colegn.2023.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Obtaining consent for surgery is a legal requirement and a professional practice standard, but little is known about how nurses and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) engage with this process.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To describe operating room (OR) HCPs’ perceptions of consent processes for adult patients undergoing planned surgery at one health service.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A qualitative exploratory design and purposive maximum variation sampling relative to age, discipline, experience, and role, were used to ensure broad perspectives were gathered. Semi-structured interviews with 17 OR HCPs were conducted between April and May 2021.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Thematic analysis identified three themes: the HCPs’ role in verifying consent goes beyond the World Health Organization’s Surgical Safety Checklist, effective communication is crucial for obtaining and verifying consent, and day-of-surgery delays and errors are multi-factorial.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Production pressures in surgery can compromise consent processes, undermine communication, and impact patient safety in the OR.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>HCPs verify more items than the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist, suggesting the checklist may not go far enough when verifying consent in surgery.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55241,"journal":{"name":"Collegian","volume":"31 1","pages":"Pages 1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S132276962300094X/pdfft?md5=d651b8e7f02cd6e776c1b888f39ac5a1&pid=1-s2.0-S132276962300094X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collegian","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S132276962300094X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Obtaining consent for surgery is a legal requirement and a professional practice standard, but little is known about how nurses and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) engage with this process.

Aim

To describe operating room (OR) HCPs’ perceptions of consent processes for adult patients undergoing planned surgery at one health service.

Methods

A qualitative exploratory design and purposive maximum variation sampling relative to age, discipline, experience, and role, were used to ensure broad perspectives were gathered. Semi-structured interviews with 17 OR HCPs were conducted between April and May 2021.

Findings

Thematic analysis identified three themes: the HCPs’ role in verifying consent goes beyond the World Health Organization’s Surgical Safety Checklist, effective communication is crucial for obtaining and verifying consent, and day-of-surgery delays and errors are multi-factorial.

Discussion

Production pressures in surgery can compromise consent processes, undermine communication, and impact patient safety in the OR.

Conclusion

HCPs verify more items than the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist, suggesting the checklist may not go far enough when verifying consent in surgery.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不只是外科医生:对手术同意过程的定性探索
获得手术同意是一项法律要求和专业实践标准,但人们对护士和其他医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)如何参与这一过程知之甚少。目的描述手术室(OR)医务人员对在一家医疗服务机构接受计划手术的成年患者的同意程序的看法。方法采用定性探索性设计和有目的的年龄、学科、经验和角色最大变异抽样,以确保收集广泛的观点。在2021年4月至5月期间对17名OR hcp进行了半结构化访谈。专题分析确定了三个主题:医务人员在核实同意方面的作用超出了世界卫生组织的《手术安全清单》;有效的沟通对于获得和核实同意至关重要;手术当日的延误和错误是多因素的。手术中的生产压力会损害同意过程,破坏沟通,影响患者在手术室的安全。结论卫生专业人员核查的项目多于世界卫生组织的《外科手术安全核对表》,说明该核对表在核查手术同意方面可能存在不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Collegian
Collegian NURSING-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
127
审稿时长
72 days
期刊介绍: Collegian: The Australian Journal of Nursing Practice, Scholarship and Research is the official journal of Australian College of Nursing (ACN). The journal aims to reflect the broad interests of nurses and the nursing profession, and to challenge nurses on emerging areas of interest. It publishes research articles and scholarly discussion of nursing practice, policy and professional issues. Papers published in the journal are peer reviewed by a double blind process using reviewers who meet high standards of academic and clinical expertise. Invited papers that contribute to nursing knowledge and debate are published at the discretion of the Editor. The journal, online only from 2016, is available to members of ACN and also by separate subscription. ACN believes that each and every nurse in Australia should have the opportunity to grow their career through quality education, and further our profession through representation. ACN is the voice of influence, providing the nursing expertise and experience required when government and key stakeholders are deciding the future of health.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Staff perceptions of the potential for nurses to address service gaps within a homeless health service in Sydney, Australia: Results of a cross-sectional survey Workplace violence against nurses in rural governmental hospitals in Jordan Implementation of evidence-based practice in paediatric nursing care: Facilitators and barriers Weaning small babies from incubator to cot: A systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1