If one wants to make something understandable for the largest possible population, then it might make more sense to offer language that can be absorbed by an 8th grader, instead of an 11th grader, for instance. Institutional review boards, for instance, recommend the lower level.

However, a recent analysis of informed consent documents from 15 studies found that the forms are aiming too high.

http://www.anesthesiologynews.com/ViewArticle.aspx?d=Policy+&+Management&d_id=3&i=December+2011&i_id=793&a_id=19827

NOTE: At http://www.ePodiatryConsentForms.com, we aim right.

Ann Miller RN MHA
[Executive-Director]

Patient safety checklists are now state law, as Nevada signed the Patient Protection Checklist bill (AB 280) into legislation this week.

More recently spearheaded by advocate Atul Gawande, MD, author of the Checklist Manifesto, the concept is simple: providers on the healthcare team should call out basic patient information and a plan prior to procedure with the aim to prevent medical errors and improve patient outcomes.

Read more: Patient safety checklists mandated by state law – FierceHealthcare http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/patient-safety-checklists-mandated-state-law/2011-05-26?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal#ixzz1VzycQjvV

Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA
http://www.BusinessofMedicalPractice.com

Informed consent continues to generate interest here for DPMs, and in the medical world.

The reason is because patients need protection from the multitude of injuries and harms that have been caused by intentional or accidental actions.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/02/balanced-approach-informed-consent.html

The controversies generated by various lapses of informed consent, in my opinion, have not been addressed and more safeguards need to be put in place to guard against harm. And, this essay is a helpful read in this regard.

Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA
[Publisher-in-Chief]

Informed consent has continued to generate a lot of interest in medicine worldwide.

The reason is because patients in medicine and subjects in clinical trials need protection from the multitude of injuries and harms that have been caused by intentional or accidental actions. The controversies generated by various lapses of informed consent, in my opinion, have not been addressed and more safeguards need to be put in place to guard against harm.

Read more here:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/02/balanced-approach-informed-consent.html#more-51089

You told your patient about the risks of a treatment or procedure before it began. Now he’s unhappy about a bad result and is suing you — and he could win! What gives?

It’s important for doctors to know exactly what they need to tell patients before a recommended treatment; and it’s important to do it the right way.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/736411

Many doctors are not aware that it’s not only in advance of a major procedure or serious medication regimen that informed consent is required; it’s also required for treatments or procedures that doctors may believe require no “disclosure” or informed consent. As a result, many doctors are not as vigilant with informed consent as they should be.

James Gottesman and Robert O’Hara effectively highlighted the many advantages of automating the informed consent process [H&HN OnLine, September 28th 2010].

Inadvertently, however, they neglected to acknowledge three vital components of the process that must be addressed irrespective of whether it is automated.

http://www.hhnmag.com/hhnmag_app/jsp/articledisplay.jsp?dcrpath=HHNMAG/PubsNewsArticle/data/0601HHN_Letters_Hofmann&domain=HHNMAG

Stanford

Settlement for client in the amount of $35,000.00.

Client underwent surgery on the fifth (smallest, little) toes for which inadequate consent was given and complications developed. This required two additional surgeries.

http://www.FootLaw.com

I’m going to post a link of this Historic Deficiencies and related articles on my blackboard website for my students, residents and surgical fellows.

Greg Morris; DPM

Posted on October 17, 2008 by Michael Quinn

A damages-only case in New York involved the plaintiff’s right to decide whether or not to receive additional medical treatment/surgical procedures to the feet, which established the podiatrists’duty to inform the patient (informed consent).

The plaintiff maintained that the two defendant podiatrists misrepresented her rights as to the nature of the surgery that they proposed to perform. She alleged that the surgeons did not obtain informed consent and that they negligently performed the surgeries, leaving her with a fused joint in her large and small toes, ataxic gait and ongoing pain and in her smaller toes, preventing her from walking properly, enjoy jogging, and race walking, as she once did, and to live a pain-free life.

The trial lasted three days and the trial judge entered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. He awarded her $ 250, 000 for past pain and suffering and $ 500,000 for future pain and suffering, for a total award of $ 750,000.

Source: Jury Verdict Review Publications, Volume 16, Issue 11 [PM NEWS]

In two separate state rulings, in both Maryland and Wisconsin State Supreme Courts, the requirement that doctors provide “every” alternative treatment and risk was made. But these rulings go even further. Plaintiffs now have the ability to sue for “informed consent” claims even in the ABSENCE of proof of negligence. This is a new high water mark against healthcare providers. Unfortunately, without tort reform, it is unlikely that these issues will be solved. At this time, tort reform is absolutely off the table.

Podiatrists now (already) try to seriously provide extensive information and obtain informed consent for procedures. But with the bar higher now, it will probably mean that podiatric physicians inform their patients about attendant risks of many non-surgical treatment choices, like injection and drug therapies. Remember, it will no longer be necessary for your patient to prove “negligence” if you practice in either of these states.

Since I am not an attorney, I cannot provide legal advice. However, I would suggest that carriers that presently insure podiatrists take heed of the new rulings, and try to prepare their insured against this new threat. This might start out with patients’ signing informed consent for injection therapy and various drug therapies, including potent antibiotics that podiatric physicians routinely order.

Source: Michael M. Rosenblatt, DPM, San Jose , CA
[Podiatry Management August 31, 2009]