Informed patient consent is a legal prerequisite endorsed by
multiple regulatory institutions including the Royal College of
Surgeons and the General Medical Council. It is also recommended
that the provision of written information is available and may take
the form of a Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) with multiple PILs
available from leading orthopaedic institutions. PILs may empower
the patient, improve compliance, and improve the patient experience.
The national reading age in the United Kingdom is less than 12 years
and therefore PILs should be written at a readability level not
exceeding 12 years old. We aim to assess the readability of PILs
currently provided by United Kingdom orthopaedic institutions. The readability of PILs on 58 common conditions provided by seven
leading orthopaedic associations in January 2017, including the
British Orthopaedic Association, British Hip Society, and the British
Association of Spinal Surgeons, was assessed. All text in each PIL
was analyzed using readability scores including the Flesch–Kincaid Grade
Level (FKGL) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) test.Aims
Patients and Methods
Our aim in this paper was to investigate the
guidelines and laws governing informed consent in the English-speaking
world. We noted a recent divergence from medical paternalism within
the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health
Board ruling of 2015. We investigated the situation in the United
Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States of
America. We read the national guidance regarding obtaining consent
for surgical intervention for each country. We used the references
from this guidance to identify the laws that helped inform the guidance,
and reviewed the court documents for each case. There has been a trend towards a more patient-focused approach
in consent in each country. Surgeons should be aware of the guidance
and legal cases so that they can inform patients fully, and prevent
legal problems if outdated practices are followed. Cite this article:
The results of hip and knee replacement surgery
are generally regarded as positive for patients. Nonetheless, they are
both major operations and have recognised complications. We present
a review of relevant claims made to the National Health Service
Litigation Authority. Between 1995 and 2010 there were 1004 claims
to a value of £41.5 million following hip replacement surgery and
523 claims to a value of £21 million for knee replacement. The most common
complaint after hip surgery was related to residual neurological
deficit, whereas after knee replacement it was related to infection.
Vascular complications resulted in the highest costs per case in
each group. Although there has been a large increase in the number of operations
performed, there has not been a corresponding relative increase
in litigation. The reasons for litigation have remained largely
unchanged over time after hip replacement. In the case of knee replacement,
although there has been a reduction in claims for infection, there
has been an increase in claims for technical errors. There has also
been a rise in claims for non-specified dissatisfaction. This information
is of value to surgeons and can be used to minimise the potential
mismatch between patient expectation, informed consent and outcome. Cite this article:
We present a review of claims made to the NHS
Litigation Authority (NHSLA) by patients with conditions affecting the
shoulder and elbow, and identify areas of dissatisfaction and potential
improvement. Between 1995 and 2012, the NHSLA recorded 811 claims
related to the shoulder and elbow, 581 of which were settled. This
comprised 364 shoulder (64%), and 217 elbow (36%) claims. A total
of £18.2 million was paid out in settled claims. Overall diagnosis,
mismanagement and intra-operative nerve injury were the most common
reasons for litigation. The highest cost paid out resulted from
claims dealing with incorrect, missed or delayed diagnosis, with
just under £6 million paid out overall. Fractures and dislocations
around the shoulder and elbow were common injuries in this category.
All 11 claims following wrong-site surgery that were settled led
to successful payouts. This study highlights the diagnoses and procedures that need
to be treated with particular vigilance. Having an awareness of
the areas that lead to litigation in shoulder and elbow surgery
will help to reduce inadvertent risks to patients and prevent dissatisfaction
and possible litigation. Cite this article:
