- Email: [email protected]
CARDIOLOGY FELLOW TRAINING AND PERSPECTIVE OF THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS
2527 JACC March 21, 2017 Volume 69, Issue 11
Spotlight on Special Topics CARDIOLOGY FELLOW TRAINING AND PERSPECTIVE OF THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS Poster Contributions Poster Hall, Hall C Friday, March 17, 2017, 3:45 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Session Title: Innovations in Education Abstract Category: 42. Spotlight on Special Topics: Education, Innovation, Advocacy, Social Media, Leadership and Practice Management Presentation Number: 1170-448 Authors: Yukiko Kunitomo, Vrunda Desai, Erica Spatz, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Background: Informed consent is paramount in the shared decision making paradigm between patients and physicians. As we aim to improve this area, it is unclear if formal training occurs or is effective for fellows who obtain consent for a variety of procedures in cardiology. The goal of this study is to elucidate the fellow’s perspective on informed consent including previous training and their experiences in obtaining informed consent. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey of cardiology fellows at Yale New Haven Hospital.
Results: Of the 22 fellows who completed the survey, 45% had received some training in informed consent. Of those who had received training, 50% affirmed that they have felt uncomfortable when obtaining informed consent versus 67% of those fellows who had no past training. The most common reasons were 1) inadequate knowledge of procedure, risks, benefits or alternatives, and 2) uncertainty about whether a patient’s specific risk factors or history altered the standard risks and benefits. In addition, 95% of respondents have seen poorly obtained consent during their training, with the most salient problem being lack of explanation of risks to the patient. Regarding the content of the informed consent conversation, only 54% of the respondents stated that they review all alternatives to a procedure with a patient most or all of the time and only 50% feel that they discuss alternatives in a balanced manner most of the time. Conclusions: These preliminary results show that although training in informed consent may help fellows with increased comfort when consenting a patient for a procedure, there is still a significant percentage of trainees who are uncomfortable obtaining informed consent. Furthermore, a thorough explanation of risks of a procedure and an objective discussion of alternatives to the intended procedure are two components of the informed consent process that may need further emphasis for improvement.
Spotlight on Special Topics CARDIOLOGY FELLOW TRAINING AND PERSPECTIVE OF THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS Poster Contributions Poster Hall, Hall C Friday, March 17, 2017, 3:45 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Session Title: Innovations in Education Abstract Category: 42. Spotlight on Special Topics: Education, Innovation, Advocacy, Social Media, Leadership and Practice Management Presentation Number: 1170-448 Authors: Yukiko Kunitomo, Vrunda Desai, Erica Spatz, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Background: Informed consent is paramount in the shared decision making paradigm between patients and physicians. As we aim to improve this area, it is unclear if formal training occurs or is effective for fellows who obtain consent for a variety of procedures in cardiology. The goal of this study is to elucidate the fellow’s perspective on informed consent including previous training and their experiences in obtaining informed consent. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey of cardiology fellows at Yale New Haven Hospital.
Results: Of the 22 fellows who completed the survey, 45% had received some training in informed consent. Of those who had received training, 50% affirmed that they have felt uncomfortable when obtaining informed consent versus 67% of those fellows who had no past training. The most common reasons were 1) inadequate knowledge of procedure, risks, benefits or alternatives, and 2) uncertainty about whether a patient’s specific risk factors or history altered the standard risks and benefits. In addition, 95% of respondents have seen poorly obtained consent during their training, with the most salient problem being lack of explanation of risks to the patient. Regarding the content of the informed consent conversation, only 54% of the respondents stated that they review all alternatives to a procedure with a patient most or all of the time and only 50% feel that they discuss alternatives in a balanced manner most of the time. Conclusions: These preliminary results show that although training in informed consent may help fellows with increased comfort when consenting a patient for a procedure, there is still a significant percentage of trainees who are uncomfortable obtaining informed consent. Furthermore, a thorough explanation of risks of a procedure and an objective discussion of alternatives to the intended procedure are two components of the informed consent process that may need further emphasis for improvement.