OBTAINING INFORMED CONSENT FOR LUMBAR DISC HERNIATION SURGERY: INFORMATION GIVEN AND PATIENT PERCEPTION. HOW MUCH DO THE PATIENTS WANT TO KNOW?

Abstract

In a high-risk technically advanced speciality like spine surgery, detailed information about all aspects of possible complications could be frightening for the patients, and thereby increase anxiety and distress. Therefore, aim of this study was to

1. Analyze written evidence of the consenting procedure pertaining to (a) nature of operation (b) benefits intended as a result of the operation (c) risks specific to the particular type of operation (c) general risks of spine surgery and anaestheia.

2. Patients’ experiences of information regarding the risk of such complications and how the information affects the patients.

Methods: 70 adult elective, consecutive patients who had been listed for Lumbar discectomy /decompression surgery were chosen. The patients were presented with questionnaire of broad-based and open-ended questions designed to elicit theirs views in each of the following areas: expectation, knowledge of risks and alternatives, and personal attitude to information and satisfaction.

The study had a non-randomized design and patients divided into TWO groups Group A and group B.

The patients in the group A received standard information and were consented in a routine way without being given written proforma with all complications. The patients in the group B were given the same information as patients in the control group, with written information about common and rare complications. Patients in both groups were assessed on an ‘impact of events scale’ and hospital anxiety and depression scale immediately before ad after the consent process and again after surgery when they were discharged from the hospital.

For comparison of the proportion of Yes and No answers in 2 groups, Fisher’s exact test was used, and for comparison of more than 2 groups, the Chi-square test was used. For graded answers and other ordinal scales, the Mann–Whitney U-test was used for comparison of 2 groups and the Kruskal–Wallis test for comparison of more than 2 groups. Spearman’s test was used when assessing the correlation between 2 variables measured on an ordinal scale.

Results: Many patients (71%) agreed that the consent form made clear what was going to happen to them, and 77%) reported that it made them aware of the risks of the operation they were to undergo. Over a third (36%) saw it as a safeguard against mixups in the operating theatre. Few patients’ decision to accept surgery appeared to depend on risk information; 8% of patients said that they might have changed their decision, had they been advised of the risks of permanent stroke and myocardial infarction. However, 92% were clear that their decision to accept treatment would not have altered. The women in the group B had symptoms of definite anxiety to a significantly higher degree than the men before the operation. Post-operatively, patients receiving extended information were significantly more satisfied with both the written and oral information about common and rare complications than patients in the control group There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for anxiety or depression, as measured by the HADS, either before or after the operation between Group A and B. Provision of extended information describing most of the possible complications did not have any negative effects on the patients. The patients receiving the extended information were more satisfied and experienced to a higher degree that they could discuss alternative treatment methods with the surgeon. Discussion: Provision of extended information describing most of the possible complications did not have any negative effects on the patients. “Ignorance is bliss” may prove to be an excellent preoperative strategy for patients when outcome is good but detrimental to long term adjustment where significant postoperative complications arise. This raises the possibility that a separate consent could be used where these risks are pre-printed and explained in vocabulary easily understood by patients. The added advantages of this form would be less confusion for the patient and there would be written evidence that patients had understood each of the major risks involved with the proposed procedure. This proposed consent form would also reduce the chance that important risks and complications are omitted when consent is being taken, as well as tackling the issue of variability of experience or lack of knowledge by the person obtaining consent.