Traditionally, informed consent for clinical
research involves the patient reading an approved Participant Information
Sheet, considering the information presented and having as much time
as they need to discuss the study information with their friends
and relatives, their clinical care and the research teams. This
system works well in the ‘planned’ or ‘elective’ setting. But what
happens if the patient requires urgent treatment for an injury or emergency? This article reviews the legal framework which governs informed
consent in the emergency setting, discusses how the approach taken
may vary according to the details of the emergency and the treatment
required, and reports on the patients’ view of providing consent
following a serious injury. We then provide some practical tips
for managing the process of informed consent in the context of injuries
and emergencies. Cite this article:
Many hospitals do not have a structured process
of consent, the attainment of which can often be rather ‘last-minute’
and somewhat chaotic. This is a surprising state of affairs as spinal
surgery is a high-risk surgical specialty with potential for expensive
litigation claims. More recently, the Montgomery ruling by the United
Kingdom Supreme Court has placed the subject of informed consent
into the spotlight. There is a paucity of practical guidance on how a consent process
can be achieved in a busy clinical setting. The British Association
of Spinal Surgeons (BASS) has convened a working party to address
this need. To our knowledge this is the first example of a national
professional body, representing a single surgical specialty, taking such
a fundamental initiative. In a hard-pressed clinical environment, the ability to achieve
admission reliably on the day of surgery, in patients at ease with
their situation and with little likelihood of late cancellation,
will be of great benefit. It will reduce litigation and improve
the patient experience. Cite this article:
Health economic evaluations potentially provide
valuable information to clinicians, health care administrators,
and policy makers regarding the financial implications of decisions
about the care of patients. The highest quality research should
be used to inform decisions that have direct impact on the access
to care and the outcome of treatment. However, economic analyses
are often complex and use research methods which are relatively unfamiliar
to clinicians. Furthermore, health economic data have substantial
national, regional, and institutional variability, which can limit
the external validity of the results of a study. Therefore, minimum
guidelines that aim to standardise the quality and transparency
of reporting health economic research have been developed, and instruments
are available to assist in the assessment of its quality and the
interpretation of results. The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the principal types
of health economic studies, to review the most common instruments
for judging the quality of these studies and to describe current
reporting guidelines. Recommendations for the submission of these
types of studies to Cite this article:
