Informed Consent: Beating a Dead Horse or an Opportunity for Quality Improvement?

Abstract

Informed consent in health care is widely accepted and expected both ethically and legally, but its complexity is often taken for granted (1,2). Although consent is a regular part of the work flow in procedural specialties such as interventional radiology (IR), studies of informed consent suggest that these discussions often fall short of the theoretical ideal (1–5). Researchers have observed that discussions vary considerably in terms of content and accuracy even within the same practice. There is also a tendency for clinicians to discuss only options within their own toolbox and to question a patient’s capacity to make a decision only when the patient disagrees with their recommendation (2–5).