Giving consent for percutaneous coronary intervention

the patient perspective of a complex process

HT Blanchard, DL Carroll, J Albert, F Astin

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting Abstract

Abstract

Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most common revascularization procedure performed for coronary artery disease. All medical procedures carry a risk and therefore patients are required to give informed consent (IC). This process is a part of good clinical practice, is a universal right, and reflects ethical principles. There are several stages to the IC process making it complex, yet little is known of the patient experience of IC for PCI.

Purpose: To evaluate patient understanding of the IC process and PCI outcomes.

Methods: A prospective cross-sectional survey was administered to a convenience sample treated with elective or urgent PCI at a single center in USA. Subjects completed the 36-item questionnaire to assess their understanding of the IC process, the risks benefits and potential outcomes of PCI. Items were rated on a scale of 1 completely agree to 5 completely disagree.

Results: Eighty-two subjects, mean age of 65 years, 64 (78%) males, 59 (72%) college-educated, completed the questionnaire after PCI. Forty-nine subjects (60%) were urgent cases. Forty seven percent received written information pre-PCI. Most (82%) recognized the key components of IC (choice, risk/benefit, alternatives), but 55% did not remember and 42% did not understand all the information provided to them as a part of IC. Eighty-three percent wanted information about all possible risks associated with PCI. Over 80% of elective PCI participants had misconceptions about the outcomes of PCI, which did not match clinical trial evidence.

Conclusion: Subjects understood the general components of IC but did not precisely understand, or remember details, about information and the outcomes of PCI. Participants wanted to know both common and uncommon risks adding to the complexity of IC. Participants requested more family involvement in IC and information given in advance to help them to understand and remember information given during IC
Original languageEnglish
Article number315
Number of pages1
JournalEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
Volume17
Issue numberS1
Early online date30 Jul 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2018
EventEuro Heart Care 2018 - Dublin, Ireland
Duration: 9 Jun 20189 Jun 2018
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474515118787764

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Informed Consent
Coronary Artery Disease
Cross-Sectional Studies
Clinical Trials

Cite this

@article{2de088c9fc50443f933140eff366c9c0,
title = "Giving consent for percutaneous coronary intervention: the patient perspective of a complex process",
abstract = "Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most common revascularization procedure performed for coronary artery disease. All medical procedures carry a risk and therefore patients are required to give informed consent (IC). This process is a part of good clinical practice, is a universal right, and reflects ethical principles. There are several stages to the IC process making it complex, yet little is known of the patient experience of IC for PCI.Purpose: To evaluate patient understanding of the IC process and PCI outcomes.Methods: A prospective cross-sectional survey was administered to a convenience sample treated with elective or urgent PCI at a single center in USA. Subjects completed the 36-item questionnaire to assess their understanding of the IC process, the risks benefits and potential outcomes of PCI. Items were rated on a scale of 1 completely agree to 5 completely disagree.Results: Eighty-two subjects, mean age of 65 years, 64 (78{\%}) males, 59 (72{\%}) college-educated, completed the questionnaire after PCI. Forty-nine subjects (60{\%}) were urgent cases. Forty seven percent received written information pre-PCI. Most (82{\%}) recognized the key components of IC (choice, risk/benefit, alternatives), but 55{\%} did not remember and 42{\%} did not understand all the information provided to them as a part of IC. Eighty-three percent wanted information about all possible risks associated with PCI. Over 80{\%} of elective PCI participants had misconceptions about the outcomes of PCI, which did not match clinical trial evidence.Conclusion: Subjects understood the general components of IC but did not precisely understand, or remember details, about information and the outcomes of PCI. Participants wanted to know both common and uncommon risks adding to the complexity of IC. Participants requested more family involvement in IC and information given in advance to help them to understand and remember information given during IC",
keywords = "Acute Nursing Care",
author = "HT Blanchard and DL Carroll and J Albert and F Astin",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1474515118787764",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
journal = "European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing",
issn = "1474-5151",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "S1",

}

Giving consent for percutaneous coronary intervention : the patient perspective of a complex process. / Blanchard, HT; Carroll, DL; Albert, J ; Astin, F.

In: European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, Vol. 17, No. S1, 315, 01.08.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting Abstract

TY - JOUR

T1 - Giving consent for percutaneous coronary intervention

T2 - the patient perspective of a complex process

AU - Blanchard, HT

AU - Carroll, DL

AU - Albert, J

AU - Astin, F

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most common revascularization procedure performed for coronary artery disease. All medical procedures carry a risk and therefore patients are required to give informed consent (IC). This process is a part of good clinical practice, is a universal right, and reflects ethical principles. There are several stages to the IC process making it complex, yet little is known of the patient experience of IC for PCI.Purpose: To evaluate patient understanding of the IC process and PCI outcomes.Methods: A prospective cross-sectional survey was administered to a convenience sample treated with elective or urgent PCI at a single center in USA. Subjects completed the 36-item questionnaire to assess their understanding of the IC process, the risks benefits and potential outcomes of PCI. Items were rated on a scale of 1 completely agree to 5 completely disagree.Results: Eighty-two subjects, mean age of 65 years, 64 (78%) males, 59 (72%) college-educated, completed the questionnaire after PCI. Forty-nine subjects (60%) were urgent cases. Forty seven percent received written information pre-PCI. Most (82%) recognized the key components of IC (choice, risk/benefit, alternatives), but 55% did not remember and 42% did not understand all the information provided to them as a part of IC. Eighty-three percent wanted information about all possible risks associated with PCI. Over 80% of elective PCI participants had misconceptions about the outcomes of PCI, which did not match clinical trial evidence.Conclusion: Subjects understood the general components of IC but did not precisely understand, or remember details, about information and the outcomes of PCI. Participants wanted to know both common and uncommon risks adding to the complexity of IC. Participants requested more family involvement in IC and information given in advance to help them to understand and remember information given during IC

AB - Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most common revascularization procedure performed for coronary artery disease. All medical procedures carry a risk and therefore patients are required to give informed consent (IC). This process is a part of good clinical practice, is a universal right, and reflects ethical principles. There are several stages to the IC process making it complex, yet little is known of the patient experience of IC for PCI.Purpose: To evaluate patient understanding of the IC process and PCI outcomes.Methods: A prospective cross-sectional survey was administered to a convenience sample treated with elective or urgent PCI at a single center in USA. Subjects completed the 36-item questionnaire to assess their understanding of the IC process, the risks benefits and potential outcomes of PCI. Items were rated on a scale of 1 completely agree to 5 completely disagree.Results: Eighty-two subjects, mean age of 65 years, 64 (78%) males, 59 (72%) college-educated, completed the questionnaire after PCI. Forty-nine subjects (60%) were urgent cases. Forty seven percent received written information pre-PCI. Most (82%) recognized the key components of IC (choice, risk/benefit, alternatives), but 55% did not remember and 42% did not understand all the information provided to them as a part of IC. Eighty-three percent wanted information about all possible risks associated with PCI. Over 80% of elective PCI participants had misconceptions about the outcomes of PCI, which did not match clinical trial evidence.Conclusion: Subjects understood the general components of IC but did not precisely understand, or remember details, about information and the outcomes of PCI. Participants wanted to know both common and uncommon risks adding to the complexity of IC. Participants requested more family involvement in IC and information given in advance to help them to understand and remember information given during IC

KW - Acute Nursing Care

U2 - 10.1177/1474515118787764

DO - 10.1177/1474515118787764

M3 - Meeting Abstract

VL - 17

JO - European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing

JF - European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing

SN - 1474-5151

IS - S1

M1 - 315

ER -