Low Quality and Lack of Clarity of Current Informed Consent Forms in Cardiology

Abstract

Guidelines on informed consent for clinical practice exhort physicians to use standard plain language to enhance patient comprehension and facilitate shared decision making. The aim of this study was to assess and improve quality and readability of current informed consent forms used in cardiology. We evaluated the currently used informed consent forms, previously written in Italian and English, of 7 common imaging examinations, according to the recommendations of scientific societies. For each text, we also developed a revised informed consent form according to reference standards, including Federal Plain Language guidelines. Regarding readability scores, we analyzed each text (standard and revised) with Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) grade level (higher numbers indicating harder-to-read text) and the Italian language-tailored Gulpease level (from 0 [difficult] to 100 [easy]). Overall quality and readability was poor for both the original English and Italian versions, and readability was improved with the revised form, with higher readability evidenced by changes in both F-K grade level (standard 10.2 ± 2.37% vs. revised 6.5 ± 0.41%; p < 0.001) for English and Gulpease (standard 45.7 ± 2% vs. revised 84.09 ± 2.98%; p < 0.0001) for Italian. In conclusion, current informed consent forms are complex, incomplete, and unreadable for the average patient. Substantial quality improvement and higher readability scores can be achieved with revised forms that explicitly discuss risks and are prepared following standard recommendations of plain writing.

Health Literacy: Readability of ACC/AHA Online Patient Education Material

“…Beginning in the 1980s, Conroy and Mulcahy [12] reported a high grade level (14.3, via Fry) of 28 pamphlets available to cardiac patients at a referral center in Ireland. More recently, Terranova et al [13] demonstrated a significantly higher than recommended RGL of patient consent forms utilized at a tertiary care referral center for 7 commonly performed examinations among cardiac patients, ranging from stress echocardiography to percutaneous coronary intervention. In addition, Mueller et al [14] demonstrated that the “Dear Patient” cardiovascular implantable device advisory letters offered by the Heart Rhythm Society significantly exceeded both the NIH-recommended and national mean RGLs.…”

Reply

“…Johnson and Gould for their interest in our paper (1). The "factually incorrect" doses reported in Figure 3 are indeed correct.…”

Radiation safety in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: Our responsibility to change

“…Ater the examinaion, the actual dose delivered should be stored in the paient's and laboratory's records. This simple process will gently force the doctor to learn what he/she should already know, enabling him/her to make more responsible choices 25 .…”