Examining the variation in consent in general surgery.

Abstract

Consent is a fundamental aspect of surgery and expectations around the consent process have changed following the Montgomery vs Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) court ruling. This study aimed to identify trends in litigation pertaining to consent, explore variation in how consent is practised among general surgeons and identify potential causes of this variation. This mixed-methods study examined temporal variation in litigation rates relating to consent (between 2011 and 2020), using data obtained from National Health Service (NHS) Resolutions. Semi-structured clinician interviews were then conducted to gain qualitative data regarding how general surgeons take consent, their ideologies and their outlook on the recent legal changes. The quantitative component included a questionnaire survey aiming to explore these issues with a larger population to improve the generalisability of the findings. NHS Resolutions litigation data showed a significant increase in litigation pertaining to consent following the 2015 health board ruling. The interviews demonstrated considerable variation in how surgeons approach consent. This was corroborated by the survey, which illustrated considerable variation in how consent is documented when different surgeons are presented with the same case vignette. A clear increase in litigation relating to consent was seen in the post-Montgomery era, which may be due to legal precedent being established and increased awareness of these issues. Findings from this study demonstrate variability in the information patients receive. In some cases, consent practices did not adequately meet current regulations and therefore are susceptible to potential litigation. This study identifies areas for improvement in the practice of consent.