Einwilligungsfähig oder nicht? Zur Praxis der Prüfung von Einwilligungsfähigkeit im klinischen Alltag und deren Herausforderungen

Abstract

Background/ObjectivesThe capacity of patients to give consent (CTC) is an indispensable prerequisite for informed consent to medical measures. When there is doubt about a patient’s CTC, careful assessment is therefore required. Despite a broad theoretical discussion about the conception of CTC and possible procedures for its assessment, there is often a lack of orientation towards binding standardized procedural guidelines in everyday clinical practice. As a consequence, the results of CTC assessments are inconsistent, revealing both interdisciplinary and interindividual variability. In order to improve the quality of CTC assessment, more detailed knowledge about the procedures as well as the problems of CTC testing is needed. Therefore, the aim of this explorative telephone survey was to get an impression of the actual procedures that clinicians apply when in doubt about a patient’s CTC. In particular, participants in the survey were asked about the weighting of individual CTC criteria and the difficulties with their application. MethodsBased on structured questionnaires, telephone interviews with 26 physicians working in German hospitals in the fields of neurology, anaesthesiology, surgery, internal medicine, gynaecology, and reconstructive/aesthetic surgery were conducted. The answers were documented using the paper-and-pencil method, and answers to open questions were summarized with the help of a qualitative data analysis software and a thematic coding scheme. ResultsThe majority of respondents reported that “sometimes to very often” they had doubts about their patients’ CTC, with the examination being mostly conducted in an individual approach without formalized, standardized specifications. Regarding the question about the weighting of the seven assessment criteria proposed in the questionnaire, their importance was predominantly evaluated as being in the range of “partially important” to “very important”. Difficulties in the clinical assessment were indicated in relation to the patients themselves, the relationship between physicians and patients, and the assessment situation. The perception of difficulties in the examination of CTC is apparently independent of the relevance attributed to the specific criterion for CTC. Discussion and conclusionOverall, the results show a high level of agreement with the relevance of the seven CTC criteria included in the survey, but at the same time revealed various verification difficulties. Some of the respondents would like to have more support in determining their patients’ CTC. The survey results suggest that precise training and adequate time resources are paramount to this sensitive medical context.