Procedural-based Specialties Benefit from a Formal Informed Consent and Disclosures Educational Program

Yong, Valeda; Zhao, Huaqing; Gilmore, Kimberly; Cripe, Jane; Conklin, Charles; Dauer, Elizabeth

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.12.008

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results from these educational efforts are consistent with our study in improving comfort and confidence after simulating IC in a more structured fashion. 8 , 24 , 25 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimum standard assessment of informed consent for internal medicine transition to residency program: A cohort study

Marwaha,

Bhalla,

Rao

et al. 2023

Health Science Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and AimsInterns must be proficient in obtaining informed consent (IC), which is the Association of American Medical College's 11th of 13 Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). Medical students have limited opportunity to practice IC during clerkships, resulting in inconsistent proficiency. We aimed to create a tool to assess whether our transition to residency (TTR) workshop enables fourth‐year medical students to meet a minimum standard of obtaining IC.MethodsSixty fourth‐year medical students were enrolled in the internal medicine virtual TTR course during AY2021. The curriculum prioritizes deliberate practice activities. Pre‐ and postworkshop assignments involved students typing verbatim what they would say during IC encounters. We modified an IC abstraction tool created by Spatz et al. to assess a minimum standard for students' IC assignments. Our final 7‐item tool consisted of the following domains: “What,” “Why,” “How,” “Benefits,” “Quantitative Risks,” “Qualitative Risks,” and “Alternatives,” weighing 1 point each. A minimum standard was obtained with a score of 6 or more points by appropriately discussing at least one domain involving risk and all other domains.ResultsStudents scored highly on the prework domains pertaining to “What,” “Why,” and “How” of the procedure with no significant difference on postwork. Significant improvement was achieved on postwork domains covering “Benefits” (p = 0.039) and “Alternatives” (p = 0.031). For domains involving “Qualitative” and “Quantitative Risks,” there were no statistically significant improvements from pre‐ to postwork scores. Fifteen and 22 students met the minimum standard for IC on pre‐ and postwork, respectively.ConclusionOur students demonstrated a good a priori understanding of the “What,” “Why,” and “How” domains. After the workshop, they more reliably discussed “Benefits” and “Alternatives.” Our abstraction tool helped assess the strengths and weaknesses in our students' IC skillset and helped recognize areas of our curriculum that will benefit from improvements to bring students to meet the minimum standard.

show abstract

“…Results from these educational efforts are consistent with our study in improving comfort and confidence after simulating IC in a more structured fashion. 8 , 24 , 25 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%