开发和早期评估用于评估手术同意过程中个性化风险承受能力的新型工具。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY British Journal of Neurosurgery Pub Date : 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1080/02688697.2024.2413453
James Booker, Jack Penn, Nicola Newall, David Rowland, Siddharth Sinha, Hani J Marcus
{"title":"开发和早期评估用于评估手术同意过程中个性化风险承受能力的新型工具。","authors":"James Booker, Jack Penn, Nicola Newall, David Rowland, Siddharth Sinha, Hani J Marcus","doi":"10.1080/02688697.2024.2413453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The legal interpretation of consent has transitioned over the last decade. Surgeons must identify what patients value to individualise surgical consent. This presents a considerable challenge during busy ward rounds or outpatient clinics. We aimed to develop and evaluate a novel risk tolerance tool to aid surgical consent.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluated the views of adult, elective surgical patients from a single centre. Attitudes to the existing surgical consent process were assessed (n = 48) and responses underwent thematic analysis. From these responses and a stakeholder focus group, a novel risk tolerance tool was developed. The risk tool was evaluated using questionnaires in 25 pre-operative patients. Post-operatively, the same cohort were followed-up with a telephone clinic 6-8 weeks after discharge.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall patients were satisfied with the current consent process, but negative themes emerged including that it is generalised, impersonal, and time pressured. The developed risk tool contained six domains: death, pain, loss of physical function, loss of cognitive function, need for repeat medical interventions, and social disability. Loss of physical function (mean = 34.0, SD = 12.8) and loss of cognitive function (mean = 34.0, SD = 6.1) had lowest risk tolerance, and need for repeat medical interventions (mean = 18.8, SD = 10.9) had the highest risk tolerance. Thirteen (93%) patients had a positive experience of the consent process vs 85% of patients in pre-consent tool cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The tool demonstrated good patient acceptability and patient reported experience. The tool gathered data that may enhance understanding of patient risk tolerance and personalise the surgical consent process.</p>","PeriodicalId":9261,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and early Evaluation of a novel tool for assessment of individualised risk tolerance during surgical consent.\",\"authors\":\"James Booker, Jack Penn, Nicola Newall, David Rowland, Siddharth Sinha, Hani J Marcus\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02688697.2024.2413453\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The legal interpretation of consent has transitioned over the last decade. Surgeons must identify what patients value to individualise surgical consent. This presents a considerable challenge during busy ward rounds or outpatient clinics. We aimed to develop and evaluate a novel risk tolerance tool to aid surgical consent.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluated the views of adult, elective surgical patients from a single centre. Attitudes to the existing surgical consent process were assessed (n = 48) and responses underwent thematic analysis. From these responses and a stakeholder focus group, a novel risk tolerance tool was developed. The risk tool was evaluated using questionnaires in 25 pre-operative patients. Post-operatively, the same cohort were followed-up with a telephone clinic 6-8 weeks after discharge.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall patients were satisfied with the current consent process, but negative themes emerged including that it is generalised, impersonal, and time pressured. The developed risk tool contained six domains: death, pain, loss of physical function, loss of cognitive function, need for repeat medical interventions, and social disability. Loss of physical function (mean = 34.0, SD = 12.8) and loss of cognitive function (mean = 34.0, SD = 6.1) had lowest risk tolerance, and need for repeat medical interventions (mean = 18.8, SD = 10.9) had the highest risk tolerance. Thirteen (93%) patients had a positive experience of the consent process vs 85% of patients in pre-consent tool cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The tool demonstrated good patient acceptability and patient reported experience. The tool gathered data that may enhance understanding of patient risk tolerance and personalise the surgical consent process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2024.2413453\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2024.2413453","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在过去十年中,对同意的法律解释发生了转变。外科医生必须确定患者的价值所在,以个性化手术同意书。这在繁忙的查房或门诊中是一个相当大的挑战。我们旨在开发和评估一种新型风险承受能力工具,以帮助手术同意:这项前瞻性纵向队列研究评估了一个中心的成年择期手术患者的观点。对现有手术同意程序的态度进行了评估(n = 48),并对答复进行了主题分析。根据这些答复和利益相关者焦点小组的意见,开发了一种新型风险承受工具。通过对 25 名术前患者进行问卷调查,对风险工具进行了评估。术后,在出院后 6-8 周对同一批患者进行了电话随访:结果:总体而言,患者对当前的同意程序表示满意,但也出现了一些负面主题,包括同意程序过于笼统、缺乏人情味和时间紧迫。开发的风险工具包含六个方面:死亡、疼痛、身体功能丧失、认知功能丧失、需要重复医疗干预和社会残疾。身体功能丧失(平均值=34.0,标度值=12.8)和认知功能丧失(平均值=34.0,标度值=6.1)的风险承受能力最低,需要重复医疗干预(平均值=18.8,标度值=10.9)的风险承受能力最高。13名患者(93%)对同意过程有积极体验,而同意前工具队列中85%的患者有积极体验:该工具显示了良好的患者可接受性和患者报告体验。该工具收集的数据可增强对患者风险承受能力的了解,并使手术同意过程个性化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Development and early Evaluation of a novel tool for assessment of individualised risk tolerance during surgical consent.

Purpose: The legal interpretation of consent has transitioned over the last decade. Surgeons must identify what patients value to individualise surgical consent. This presents a considerable challenge during busy ward rounds or outpatient clinics. We aimed to develop and evaluate a novel risk tolerance tool to aid surgical consent.

Methods: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluated the views of adult, elective surgical patients from a single centre. Attitudes to the existing surgical consent process were assessed (n = 48) and responses underwent thematic analysis. From these responses and a stakeholder focus group, a novel risk tolerance tool was developed. The risk tool was evaluated using questionnaires in 25 pre-operative patients. Post-operatively, the same cohort were followed-up with a telephone clinic 6-8 weeks after discharge.

Results: Overall patients were satisfied with the current consent process, but negative themes emerged including that it is generalised, impersonal, and time pressured. The developed risk tool contained six domains: death, pain, loss of physical function, loss of cognitive function, need for repeat medical interventions, and social disability. Loss of physical function (mean = 34.0, SD = 12.8) and loss of cognitive function (mean = 34.0, SD = 6.1) had lowest risk tolerance, and need for repeat medical interventions (mean = 18.8, SD = 10.9) had the highest risk tolerance. Thirteen (93%) patients had a positive experience of the consent process vs 85% of patients in pre-consent tool cohort.

Conclusions: The tool demonstrated good patient acceptability and patient reported experience. The tool gathered data that may enhance understanding of patient risk tolerance and personalise the surgical consent process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Neurosurgery
British Journal of Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Neurosurgery is a leading international forum for debate in the field of neurosurgery, publishing original peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality, along with comment and correspondence on all topics of current interest to neurosurgeons worldwide. Coverage includes all aspects of case assessment and surgical practice, as well as wide-ranging research, with an emphasis on clinical rather than experimental material. Special emphasis is placed on postgraduate education with review articles on basic neurosciences and on the theory behind advances in techniques, investigation and clinical management. All papers are submitted to rigorous and independent peer-review, ensuring the journal’s wide citation and its appearance in the major abstracting and indexing services.
期刊最新文献
Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury after radiographic progression: a 6-year experience at a single Canadian Level 1 trauma Centre. Management of brain tumour related epilepsy (BTRE): a narrative review and therapy recommendations. Obstructive hydrocephalus due to an enlarged massa intermedia treated with endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Time to evacuation of acute subdural and extradural haematoma: prospective study before and after implementation of a major trauma centre. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion - clinical outcomes, fusion rates and complications with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2.
×
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