Consent and refusal of procedures during labour and birth: a survey among 11 418 women in the Netherlands.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015538
Marit Sophia Gerardina van der Pijl, Margot Klein Essink, Tineke van der Linden, Rachel Verweij, Elselijn Kingma, Martine H Hollander, Ank de Jonge, Corine J Verhoeven
{"title":"Consent and refusal of procedures during labour and birth: a survey among 11 418 women in the Netherlands.","authors":"Marit Sophia Gerardina van der Pijl, Margot Klein Essink, Tineke van der Linden, Rachel Verweij, Elselijn Kingma, Martine H Hollander, Ank de Jonge, Corine J Verhoeven","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Informed consent for medical interventions is ethically and legally required; an important aspect of quality and safety in healthcare; and essential to person-centred care. During labour and birth, respecting consent requirements, including respecting refusal, can contribute to a higher sense of choice and control for labouring women. This study examines (1) to what extent and for which procedures during labour and birth women report that consent requirements were not met and/or inadequate information was provided, (2) how frequently women consider consent requirements not being met upsetting and (3) which personal characteristics are associated with the latter.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A national cross-sectional survey was conducted in the Netherlands among women who gave birth up to 5 years previously. Respondents were recruited through social media with the help of influencers and organisations. The survey focused on 10 common procedures during labour and birth, investigating for each procedure if respondents were offered the procedure, if they consented or refused, if the information provision was sufficient and if they underwent unconsented procedures, whether they found this upsetting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>13 359 women started the survey and 11 418 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consent not asked was most often reported by respondents who underwent postpartum oxytocin (47.5%) and episiotomy (41.7%). Refusal was most often over-ruled when performing augmentation of labour (2.2%) and episiotomy (1.9%). Information provision was reported inadequate more often when consent requirements were not met compared with when they were met. Multiparous women had decreased odds of reporting unmet consent requirements compared with primiparous (adjusted ORs 0.54-0.85). There was considerable variation across procedures in how frequently not meeting consent requirements was considered upsetting.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Consent for performing a procedure is frequently absent in Dutch maternity care. In some instances, procedures were performed in spite of the woman's refusal. More awareness is needed on meeting necessary consent requirements in order to achieve person-centred and high-quality care during labour and birth.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":"511-522"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287523/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015538","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Informed consent for medical interventions is ethically and legally required; an important aspect of quality and safety in healthcare; and essential to person-centred care. During labour and birth, respecting consent requirements, including respecting refusal, can contribute to a higher sense of choice and control for labouring women. This study examines (1) to what extent and for which procedures during labour and birth women report that consent requirements were not met and/or inadequate information was provided, (2) how frequently women consider consent requirements not being met upsetting and (3) which personal characteristics are associated with the latter.

Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted in the Netherlands among women who gave birth up to 5 years previously. Respondents were recruited through social media with the help of influencers and organisations. The survey focused on 10 common procedures during labour and birth, investigating for each procedure if respondents were offered the procedure, if they consented or refused, if the information provision was sufficient and if they underwent unconsented procedures, whether they found this upsetting.

Results: 13 359 women started the survey and 11 418 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consent not asked was most often reported by respondents who underwent postpartum oxytocin (47.5%) and episiotomy (41.7%). Refusal was most often over-ruled when performing augmentation of labour (2.2%) and episiotomy (1.9%). Information provision was reported inadequate more often when consent requirements were not met compared with when they were met. Multiparous women had decreased odds of reporting unmet consent requirements compared with primiparous (adjusted ORs 0.54-0.85). There was considerable variation across procedures in how frequently not meeting consent requirements was considered upsetting.

Conclusions: Consent for performing a procedure is frequently absent in Dutch maternity care. In some instances, procedures were performed in spite of the woman's refusal. More awareness is needed on meeting necessary consent requirements in order to achieve person-centred and high-quality care during labour and birth.

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
同意和拒绝分娩过程中的程序:对荷兰 11 418 名妇女的调查。
背景:医疗干预的知情同意是道德和法律上的要求,是医疗质量和安全的一个重要方面,也是以人为本的护理所必不可少的。在分娩和生产过程中,尊重同意要求(包括尊重拒绝同意)有助于提高产妇的选择感和控制感。本研究探讨了:(1)在分娩和生产过程中,妇女在多大程度上以及在哪些程序中表示同意要求未得到满足和/或提供的信息不足;(2)妇女认为同意要求未得到满足而感到不安的频率;以及(3)哪些个人特征与后者有关:在荷兰对 5 年前分娩的妇女进行了一次全国性横断面调查。受访者是在有影响力的人士和组织的帮助下通过社交媒体招募的。调查的重点是分娩和生产过程中的 10 种常见程序,调查每种程序是否向受访者提供了该程序、受访者是否同意或拒绝该程序、提供的信息是否充分,以及如果受访者接受了未经同意的程序,她们是否觉得不愉快:13 359 名妇女参与了调查,其中 11 418 名符合纳入和排除标准。接受产后催产素(47.5%)和外阴切开术(41.7%)的受访者最常报告未经同意的情况。在进行扩产(2.2%)和开腹手术(1.9%)时,拒绝同意的情况最常见。与满足同意要求的情况相比,未满足同意要求的情况下更常出现信息提供不足的情况。与初产妇相比,多产妇报告未满足同意要求的几率较低(调整后 ORs 为 0.54-0.85)。在不同的手术中,不满足同意要求被认为是令人不快的频率存在很大差异:结论:在荷兰的孕产妇护理中,经常出现未经同意就实施手术的情况。在某些情况下,尽管产妇拒绝,但手术还是进行了。为了在分娩和生产过程中实现以人为本的高质量护理,需要提高对满足必要的同意要求的认识。
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
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review. Understanding the enablers and barriers to implementing a patient-led escalation system: a qualitative study. Assessing patient work system factors for medication management during transition of care among older adults: an observational study. Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: the only reasons for regulators to target individuals. Patient-activated escalation in hospital: patients and their families are ready!
×
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