Cargando…

Informed Consent before coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention from the patient’s perspective: A picture is worth a thousand words

BACKGROUND: Patients scheduled for coronary angiography may feel insufficiently informed about the planned procedure. We aimed to evaluate the patient-rated quality of the Informed Consent (IC) process and to investigate the efficacy of medical graphics to assist and improve the IC procedure. METHOD...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brand, A., Crayen, C., Hamann, A., Martineck, S., Gao, L., Brand, H., Squier, S.M., Stangl, K., Kendel, F., Stangl, V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9254333/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35800041
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101076
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Patients scheduled for coronary angiography may feel insufficiently informed about the planned procedure. We aimed to evaluate the patient-rated quality of the Informed Consent (IC) process and to investigate the efficacy of medical graphics to assist and improve the IC procedure. METHODS: A graphic-based information broschure illustrating central steps of the procedure was created in collaboration with scientific illustrators. In a randomized, controlled, prospective trial, 121 patients undergoing coronary angiography/PCI were randomized to a group obtaining the usual IC (Control group) or to a group that additionally obtained a graphic-based IC (Comic group). The perceived quality of the IC was compared between groups using single items of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 and self-designed single items. RESULTS: Only 67.8% of patients stated to have completely read the standard written IC sheet. The quality of the IC was perceived to be very good in 45.0% of patients in the Comic group compared to 24.6% in the Control group (p =.023). 57.4% of the Control group compared to 76.7% of the Comic group stated that all of their questions were satisfactorily adressed (p =.015). 43.3% of the Comic group, in contrast to only 18.0% of the Control group, declared to feel „very satisfied“ with the obtained IC procedure (p =.002). The acceptance of this new IC approach was very high: no patient expressed feelings of not being taken seriously when reading medical graphics. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm pronounced limitations of the usual IC practice. The use of medical graphics positively impacts on patient-evaluated endpoints and may significantly improve the IC procedure.