Survey of informed consent for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Prior to performance of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, physicians are generally required to apprise patients of potential risks, benefits, and alternatives. Components of the informed consent process require that: (1) consent be voluntary; (2) the patient be sufficiently mentally capable to engage in rational decision-making; and (3) “adequate information” be conveyed. Controversies reflected in both medical and legal literature concern the definition of “adequate information.” To sample current opinion regarding consent for both diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP, members of the Indiana Gut Club and Midwest Gut Club were polled. From this group of academic and private practice physicians, 81 completed evaluations were compiled. Greater than 90% of physicians believed that pancreatitis and pancreatitis/bleeding/perforation must be mentioned for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP, respectively. There was variation of opinion as to whether patients must be informed of potential need for surgery, prolonged hospital stay, or death. The performing physician was felt to be ultimately responsible for obtaining consent, although other health-care team members, excluding a secretary, could participate.