Obstacles to consent for intravenous rtPAin acute stroke (clinical audit and survey) (2016)

Type of publication:
Conference abstract

*Alamgir M., *Srinivasan M., *Ghani U.

Cerebrovascular Diseases, May 2016, Vol. 41, Supplement 1, p.285-286

Introduction: Intravenous thrombolysis with rTPA is the standard of care for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke within 3 hrs (up to 4.5 in suitable Pt) after stroke onset. Even with clear evidence of benefit there is increased risk of harm . Due to complex risk & benefit aspects of the treatment the current guidance recommends consent should be obtained for intravenous thrombolysis whenever possible. Our objective was to review the current practice in documentation of consent and also identify the factors which contribute in fauilu-re to obtain consnet Method: We have randomly selected 25 Patient’s notes those were admitted from November 2014 to May 2015 and looked for the completed consent form or documentation elsewhere. We have also conducted a survey among Stroke Consultants and medical registrars (who are involved in administration of intravenous thrombolysis) to identify the reasons responsible for failure to obtain consent in acute setting. Results: The documentation of consent was noted to be very poor (either on consent form or documentation elsewhere in notes). Consent form was completed only in 27% cases and there was no clear documentation of reasons for not obtaining consent in the rest. Survey results showed that the only 40% were aware of the consent form in pathway. Reasons of not obtaining consent were , Time pressure = 40%, Patient factors = 40, Ignorance of statistics( Not sure about actual statistics) = 20 %. Conclusion: We have recommended that the use of a consent form with visual illustrations of statistics of risks & benefits to make consent process easier to understand for patients & save time in acute settings. Alternatively suggested that If patient does not have capacity for consent then there should be every effort made to involve the family and next of kin in decision making process (Figure Presented).

Link to more details or full-text: http://misc.karger.com/products/CED_2016_041_S1/index.html