BackgroundInformed consent (IC) is a process requiring a competent doctor, adequate transfer of information, and consent of the patient. It is not just a signature on a piece of paper. Current consent processes in surgery are probably outdated and may require major changes to adjust them to modern day legislation. A literature search may provide an opportunity for enhancing the quality of the surgical IC (SIC) process.MethodsRelevant English literature obtained from PubMed, Picarta, PsycINFO, and Google between 1993 and 2009 was reviewed.ResultsThe body of literature with respect to SIC is slim and of moderate quality. The SIC process is an underestimated part of surgery and neither surgeons nor patients sufficiently realize its importance. Surgeons are not specifically trained and lack the competence to guide patients through a legally correct SIC process. Computerized programs can support the SIC process significantly but are rarely used for this purpose.ConclusionsIC should be integrated into our surgical practice. Unfortunately, a big gap exists between the theoretical/legal best practice and the daily practice of IC. An optimally informed patient will have more realistic expectations regarding a surgical procedure and its associated risks. Well-informed patients will be more satisfied and file fewer legal claims. The use of interactive computer-based programs provides opportunities to improve the SIC process.

No abstract

Background Provision of adequate patient information may contribute to a ''satisfying'' surgical treatment. The patient's views on successful transfer of information concerning operative characteristics may not be in concert with the surgeon's. The aim of the present study was to determine opinions of both surgeons and patients about issues of surgical information. Methods A group of surgeons (n = 24) and surgical patients (n = 125) responded to a questionnaire that included 80 topics involving domains of information on disease, physical examination, preoperative period, anesthesia, operation, postoperative period, self care, and general hospital issues. Both groups were asked for their opinion on what they considered important and useful preoperative information for patients. Questions were scored with a visual analog scale. The reliability of the questionnaire was calculated with Cronbach's alpha.Differences in opinions between surgeons and patients were analyzed with Student's t-test. Results The Cronbach's alpha of the questionnaire was high (0.91), indicating its high reliability. Patients scored significantly higher (p \ 0.001) in most domains, including preoperative period, anaesthesia, operation, postoperative period, self care, and general hospital information. Women demonstrated a significantly higher need for information than men did. These findings were independent of patient age or complexity of operation. In contrast, surgeons thought that their patients desired more extensive information on cause, effect, and prognosis of the disease itself (p \ 0.001). Conclusion Surgeons generally underestimate their patients' desire for receiving extensive information prior to a surgical procedure of any complexity. Surgeons should develop strategies to bridge this informational mismatch.

BackgroundA properly conducted surgical informed consent process (SIC) allows patients to authorize an invasive procedure with full comprehension of relevant information including involved risks. Current practice of SIC may differ from the ideal situation. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether SIC practiced by Dutch general surgeons and residents is adequate with involvement of all required elements.MethodsAll members of the Dutch Society of Surgery received an online multiple choice questionnaire evaluating various aspects of SIC.ResultsA total of 453 questionnaires obtained from surgeons and residents representing >95% of all Dutch hospitals were eligible for analysis (response rate 30%). Knowledge on SIC was limited as only 55% was familiar with all three basic elements (‘assessment of preconditions’, ‘provision of information’ and ‘stage of consent’). Residents performance was inferior compared to surgeons regarding most aspects of daily practice of SIC. One in 6 surgeons (17%) had faced a SIC-related complaint in the previous five years possibly illustrating suboptimal SIC implementation in daily surgical practice.ConclusionsThe quality of the current SIC process is far from optimal in the Netherlands. Surgical residents require training aimed at improving awareness and skills. The SIC process is ideally supported using modern tools including web-based interactive programs. Improvement of the SIC process may enhance patient satisfaction and may possibly reduce the number of complaints.

Background An invaginated strip of the great saphenous vein (GSV) may be associated with diminished blood loss and less discomfort compared to conventional stripping in patients with unilateral primary GSV varicosis. Methods Ninety-two patients were randomized for conventional (CON) or invaginated (INVAG) stripping and were followed for 26 weeks postoperatively.