The impact of inadequate disclosure and patient recall on the consent process in neurosurgery: A systematic literature review.

Abstract

Background: The informed consent process in neurosurgery aims to uphold patient autonomy and provide comprehensive information for decision-making. However, gaps in communication and understanding between patients and surgeons persist. This systematic review examined the impact of consent on neurosurgical practice, exploring the effectiveness of different consent approaches.

Methods: A comprehensive search of databases and relevant sources identified twenty-eight studies for inclusion. Prospective and retrospective studies were assessed to examine the effect of consent on neurosurgical practice. Data collection and analysis involved independent reviewers assessing eligibility, study quality, and risk of bias. Findings from the included studies were used to write the review.

Main results: Randomized controlled trials specific to the impact of consent in neurosurgery needed to be included. Nevertheless, the reviewed twenty-nine studies revealed a significant risk of litigation due to inadequate information provision. Neurosurgeons' adherence to the standard of competent peers was identified as crucial in bridging the gap between desired and actual patient-surgeon interactions.

Authors conclusions: This review underscores the need to address communication gaps between patients and surgeons within the informed consent process in neurosurgery. Neurosurgeons must strive to meet the standard of competent peers and implement effective consent strategies involving multiple modalities. Enhancing communication and patient comprehension can mitigate potential litigation risks, ensuring better patient-centred care and shared decision-making in neurosurgical practice.