BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):29 (2017)

Authors
Steven Joseph Thomas
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Abstract
Consent remains a crucial, yet challenging, cornerstone of clinical practice. The ethical, legal and professional understandings of this construct have evolved away from a doctor-centred act to a patient-centred process that encompasses the patient’s values, beliefs and goals. This alignment of consent with the philosophy of shared decision-making was affirmed in a recent high-profile Supreme Court ruling in England. The communication of information is central to this model of health care delivery but it can be difficult for doctors to gauge the information needs of the individual patient. The aim of this paper is to describe ‘core information sets’ which are defined as a minimum set of consensus-derived information about a given procedure to be discussed with all patients. Importantly, they are intended to catalyse discussion of subjective importance to individuals. The model described in this paper applies health services research and Delphi consensus-building methods to an idea orginally proposed 30 years ago. The hypothesis is that, first, large amounts of potentially-important information are distilled down to discrete information domains. These are then, secondly, rated by key stakeholders in multiple iterations, so that core information of agreed importance can be defined. We argue that this scientific approach is key to identifying information important to all stakeholders, which may otherwise be communicated poorly or omitted from discussions entirely. Our methods apply systematic review, qualitative, survey and consensus-building techniques to define this ‘core information’. We propose that such information addresses the ‘reasonable patient’ standard for information disclosure but, more importantly, can serve as a spring board for high-value discussion of importance to the individual patient. The application of established research methods can define information of core importance to informed consent. Further work will establish how best to incorporate this model in routine practice.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0188-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,393
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Some Limits of Informed Consent.O. O'Neill - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (1):4-7.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Balancing the Quality of Consent.M. O. Hansson - 1998 - Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (3):182-187.
Health Information Technology and the Idea of Informed Consent.Melissa M. Goldstein - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (1):27-35.
Mandatory Disclosure and Medical Paternalism.Emma Bullock - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (2):409-424.
The Consent Problem Within DNA Biobanks.Darren Shickle - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (3):503-519.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-04-27

Total views
27 ( #404,718 of 2,448,947 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #443,144 of 2,448,947 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes