Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of consenting processes and their effects on patient decision-making when undergoing spinal injections: the Risks In Spinal Consenting for Surgery (RISCS) trial

James Fletcher, Mohsin Khan, Paul Thorpe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction There are major differences between legal and medical approaches to informed consent. Medically, consent is obtained prospectively for an intended procedure, to inform the patient of choices, risks and benefits, and to manage expectations. Legally, consent is reviewed retrospectively, usually following unmet expectations and/or the occurrence of complications. Recent legal cases relating to clinical negligence define the establishment of causation and breach of duty related to informed consent. However, there is no prospective evidence to validate the current judicial perspectives on causation and thus clinical negligence. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether variations in consenting processes for the same procedure lead to changes in patient decision-making related to consent for that procedure.

Methods and analysis The Risks In Spinal Consenting for Surgery trial is a single-centre, non-inferiority RCT, where 220 patients, aged over 18 years, receiving an elective, day case spinal injection, will be randomised to either a ‘legally styled’ consent form with 55 risks identified in the world literature, or a ‘medically styled’ consent form with the 13 serious or most common risks usually quoted by reference to specialist society guidelines. Following explanation of the medical reasons for considering an injection therapy and consent to the trial, participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups (1:1). The patients are then given the opportunity to discuss any concerns relating to the procedure and/or risks with a single specialist practitioner. The primary outcome will be rates of consent withdrawal due to the risks explained. Secondary outcomes include scores from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Visual Analogue Scale, EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index.

Ethics and dissemination Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences. This study is approved by the Health Research Authority: REC 16/SC/0510.

Trial registration number ISRCTN67513618; Pre-results.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere023426
JournalBMJ Open
Volume8
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Sep 2018

Cite this

@article{37ad0c88fa9f4558820355cb307494e0,
title = "Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of consenting processes and their effects on patient decision-making when undergoing spinal injections: the Risks In Spinal Consenting for Surgery (RISCS) trial",
abstract = "Introduction There are major differences between legal and medical approaches to informed consent. Medically, consent is obtained prospectively for an intended procedure, to inform the patient of choices, risks and benefits, and to manage expectations. Legally, consent is reviewed retrospectively, usually following unmet expectations and/or the occurrence of complications. Recent legal cases relating to clinical negligence define the establishment of causation and breach of duty related to informed consent. However, there is no prospective evidence to validate the current judicial perspectives on causation and thus clinical negligence. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether variations in consenting processes for the same procedure lead to changes in patient decision-making related to consent for that procedure.Methods and analysis The Risks In Spinal Consenting for Surgery trial is a single-centre, non-inferiority RCT, where 220 patients, aged over 18 years, receiving an elective, day case spinal injection, will be randomised to either a ‘legally styled’ consent form with 55 risks identified in the world literature, or a ‘medically styled’ consent form with the 13 serious or most common risks usually quoted by reference to specialist society guidelines. Following explanation of the medical reasons for considering an injection therapy and consent to the trial, participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups (1:1). The patients are then given the opportunity to discuss any concerns relating to the procedure and/or risks with a single specialist practitioner. The primary outcome will be rates of consent withdrawal due to the risks explained. Secondary outcomes include scores from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Visual Analogue Scale, EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index.Ethics and dissemination Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences. This study is approved by the Health Research Authority: REC 16/SC/0510.Trial registration number ISRCTN67513618; Pre-results.",
author = "James Fletcher and Mohsin Khan and Paul Thorpe",
note = "{\circledC} Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023426",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of consenting processes and their effects on patient decision-making when undergoing spinal injections: the Risks In Spinal Consenting for Surgery (RISCS) trial

AU - Fletcher, James

AU - Khan, Mohsin

AU - Thorpe, Paul

N1 - © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

PY - 2018/9/10

Y1 - 2018/9/10

N2 - Introduction There are major differences between legal and medical approaches to informed consent. Medically, consent is obtained prospectively for an intended procedure, to inform the patient of choices, risks and benefits, and to manage expectations. Legally, consent is reviewed retrospectively, usually following unmet expectations and/or the occurrence of complications. Recent legal cases relating to clinical negligence define the establishment of causation and breach of duty related to informed consent. However, there is no prospective evidence to validate the current judicial perspectives on causation and thus clinical negligence. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether variations in consenting processes for the same procedure lead to changes in patient decision-making related to consent for that procedure.Methods and analysis The Risks In Spinal Consenting for Surgery trial is a single-centre, non-inferiority RCT, where 220 patients, aged over 18 years, receiving an elective, day case spinal injection, will be randomised to either a ‘legally styled’ consent form with 55 risks identified in the world literature, or a ‘medically styled’ consent form with the 13 serious or most common risks usually quoted by reference to specialist society guidelines. Following explanation of the medical reasons for considering an injection therapy and consent to the trial, participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups (1:1). The patients are then given the opportunity to discuss any concerns relating to the procedure and/or risks with a single specialist practitioner. The primary outcome will be rates of consent withdrawal due to the risks explained. Secondary outcomes include scores from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Visual Analogue Scale, EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index.Ethics and dissemination Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences. This study is approved by the Health Research Authority: REC 16/SC/0510.Trial registration number ISRCTN67513618; Pre-results.

AB - Introduction There are major differences between legal and medical approaches to informed consent. Medically, consent is obtained prospectively for an intended procedure, to inform the patient of choices, risks and benefits, and to manage expectations. Legally, consent is reviewed retrospectively, usually following unmet expectations and/or the occurrence of complications. Recent legal cases relating to clinical negligence define the establishment of causation and breach of duty related to informed consent. However, there is no prospective evidence to validate the current judicial perspectives on causation and thus clinical negligence. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether variations in consenting processes for the same procedure lead to changes in patient decision-making related to consent for that procedure.Methods and analysis The Risks In Spinal Consenting for Surgery trial is a single-centre, non-inferiority RCT, where 220 patients, aged over 18 years, receiving an elective, day case spinal injection, will be randomised to either a ‘legally styled’ consent form with 55 risks identified in the world literature, or a ‘medically styled’ consent form with the 13 serious or most common risks usually quoted by reference to specialist society guidelines. Following explanation of the medical reasons for considering an injection therapy and consent to the trial, participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups (1:1). The patients are then given the opportunity to discuss any concerns relating to the procedure and/or risks with a single specialist practitioner. The primary outcome will be rates of consent withdrawal due to the risks explained. Secondary outcomes include scores from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Visual Analogue Scale, EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index.Ethics and dissemination Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences. This study is approved by the Health Research Authority: REC 16/SC/0510.Trial registration number ISRCTN67513618; Pre-results.

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023426

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023426

M3 - Article

VL - 8

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 9

M1 - e023426

ER -