764 Is Consent Valid in Common Orthopaedic Surgeries?

Abstract

Abstract Aim Consent is at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship. Valid consent should be voluntary, informed and the patient must have the capacity to make the decision. It is the doctor’s responsibility to ensure the patient can make an informed decision. The aim of this audit is to assess the validity of consent within Salford Royal Foundation Trust Orthopaedic department. Method We retrospectively reviewed 225 consent forms for four common orthopaedic trauma procedures: 44 wrist ORIF, 48 ankle fixation, 71 hip hemiarthroplasty and 62 fixations with DHS. BOA-endorsed OrthoConsent and SRFT-produced leaflets were utilised as a standard for reported surgical risks and complications. Collated patient consents were compared against these standards. Exclusion criteria included consent four and polytrauma patients. Results 96 forms were excluded leaving 129 consent forms. In all four procedures, 86%-100% had documented infection, nerve injury and bleeding. Compartment syndrome was not documented for any wrist ORIF patients. CRPS was recorded in only 57% of wrist and 31% of ankle ORIF patients. Wound healing complications was documented in 17% of ankle ORIF. In 71% of DHS and 64% of hemiarthroplasty patients, risk of death was not recorded. Conclusions Targets for achieving satisfactory consent form documentation were not met and showed significant variation amongst clinicians. It suggests that patients are not being fully informed of benefits and risks of surgery. Recommendations include the introduction of posters and encouraging printing off patient information leaflets and improving education on valid consent for rotational doctors.