The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate the adequacy of informed consent documentation in the trauma setting for distal radius fracture surgery compared with the elective setting for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at a large public hospital and (2) to explore the relevant guidelines in New Zealand relating to consent documentation. Consecutive adult patients (≥16 years) undergoing operations for distal radius fractures and elective TKA over a 12-month period in a single-centre were retrospectively identified. All medical records were reviewed for the risks and complications recorded. The consent form was analysed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index readability scores. A total of 133 patients undergoing 134 operations for 135 distal radius fractures and 239 patients undergoing 247 TKA were included. Specific risks of surgery were recorded significantly less frequently for distal radius fractures than TKA (43.3% versus 78.5%, P < 0.001). Significantly fewer risks were recorded in the trauma setting compared to the elective (2.35 ± 2.98 versus 4.95 ± 3.33, P < 0.001). The readability of the consent form was 40.5 using the FRES and 10.9 using the SMOG index, indicating a university undergraduate level of reading. This study has shown poor compliance in documenting risks of surgery during the informed consent process in an acute trauma setting compared to elective arthroplasty. Institutions must prioritise improving documentation of informed consent for orthopaedic trauma patients to ensure a patient-centred approach to healthcare

Two discrete legal factors enable the surgeon to treat an injured patient the fully informed, autonomous consent of the adult patient with capacity via civil law; and the medical exception to the criminal law. This article discusses current concepts in consent in trauma; and also considers the perhaps less well known medical exception to the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which exempts surgeons from criminal liability as long as they provide ‘proper medical treatment’. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):565–569

Informed consent is vital to good surgical practice. Pain, sedative medication and psychological distress resulting from trauma are likely to adversely affect a patient's ability to understand and retain information thus impairing the quality of the consent process. This study aims to assess whether provision of written information improves trauma patient's recall of the risks associated with their surgery.

121 consecutive trauma patients were randomised to receive structured verbal information or structured verbal information with the addition of supplementary written information at the time of obtaining consent for their surgery. Patients were followed up post-operatively (mean 3.2 days) with a questionnaire to assess recall of risks discussed during the consent interview and satisfaction with the consent process.

Recall of risks discussed in the consent interview was found to be significantly improved in the group receiving written and verbal information compared to verbal information alone (mean questionnaire score 41% vs. 64%), p=0.0014 using the Mann-Whitney U test. Patient satisfaction with the consent process was significantly improved in the group receiving written and verbal information, 97.9% of patients reported that they understood the risks of surgery when they signed the consent form compared to 83.2% who received verbal information alone (p=0.01). The majority of patients who received written information reported finding it helpful (93.8%) and most of the patients who did not receive written information reported they would have found it useful had it been offered (66%).

Patients awaiting surgery following trauma can pose a challenge to adequately inform about benefits conferred, the likely post operative course and potential risks. Written information is a simple and cost-effective means to improve the consent process and was popular with patients.

With modern day easy access to information, many health staff may be presumptuous of patients' level of understanding of medical terms and abbreviations. A recent audit of consent forms in Orthopaedic trauma in our department showed that doctors used abbreviations in 21% of consent forms; this was seen to increase to 48% during the re-audit. The findings motivated us to conduct this study to evaluate the level of patients' understanding of commonly used abbreviations/terminologies. This questionnaire-based study recruited patients from both our elective and Trauma Orthopaedic units. Patient age, gender, medical and educational backgrounds were all randomised. Patients' understanding of 24 abbreviations/terminologies, selected from consent forms, patients' discharge letters and verbal communication with patients, were quantitatively and qualitatively assessed. Patients' perspectives were also sought. All 182 patients who participated were proficient in English language. Most patients(80.2%) understood the term “physio,” however only 3.8% could correctly interpret “DHS”. 10% of patients understood “TKR,” 8.2% understood “THR” and 3.8% understood “NOF”. Interestingly, although 61.5% understood “DVT,” only 8.2% understood “PE” with most interpreting it as physical education/exercise. Only 8.2% related “MI” to any form of cardiac pathology. Almost all patients confirmed the use of unfamiliar abbreviations by health staff during communication. Our study revealed that patients were not conversant with many abbreviations used in Orthopaedics. There is a need for greater awareness amongst doctors and other health staff about the indiscriminate use of abbreviations. From patients' perspective, interpretation should be given when using abbreviations or avoid their use altogether

The surgical community is plagued with a reputation for both failing to engage and to deliver on clinical research. This is in part due to the absence of a strong research culture, however it is also due to a multitude of barriers encountered in clinical research; particularly those involving surgical interventions. ‘Trauma’ amplifies these barriers, owing to the unplanned nature of care, unpredictable work patterns, the emergent nature of treatment and complexities in the consent process. This review discusses the barriers to clinical research in surgery, with a particular emphasis on trauma. It considers how barriers may be overcome, with the aim to facilitate future successful clinical research.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:123–9.