Experiences of patients and next of kin on informed consent process for emergency surgery in two Urban university teaching hospitals in Uganda: a comparative cross sectional study

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Informed consent for emergency surgery is a process in which a patient or their next of kin must make quick decisions required for surgery in a life-threatening situation or surgery that may have life-altering outcomes. The objective of the study was to describe patients and their next of kin experiences and factors influencing the informed consent process in two urban university teaching hospitals in Uganda. Methods: A cross-sectional survey involving patients who underwent emergency surgery and their next of kin was conducted in two tertiary care hospitals; one public and one private-not-for profit institution. A questionnaire was administered to collect sociodemographic information, type of Surgery that was done, how informed consent was obtained and experiences and expectations from the informed consent process. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the variables was done. Results: We collected data from 210 patients from a public hospital and 170 from a private-not-for profit hospital. Overall, most patients did not have the risks of the surgery communicated to them (79.7%), were not given alternative options (87.6%) and had no opportunity to ask questions (57.4%). Patients at the private institution had 3.35 times the odds of expecting the consent form to be explained to them than those at the public institution. Patients at the public hospital had 0.12 times the odds of preferring to have consent administered by a nurse than patients at the private institution OR 0.12 (0.05–0.29, p < 0.001). Patients in the public institution had 0.18 times the odds of preferring to have consent administered by a doctor than patients in the private institution OR 0.18 (0.08–0.45, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients in both public and private institutions are not informed about the risks of surgery, alternative options and are not given the opportunity to ask questions. Interpretation of the findings of this study on patient preferences on who administered consent though statistically significant were inconclusive due to the responses not being mutually exclusive.