Written consent is haphazard for minor urological procedures.
Objective To determine the current practice among British urologists for obtaining written consent for flexible cystoscopy and other minor procedures under local anaesthesia.
Methods Postal questionnaires were sent to full members of The British Association of Urological Surgeons practising in the UK asking if they obtained written informed consent for local anaesthetic procedures, e.g. flexible cystoscopy, urethral dilatation, and urethral catheterization for retention, for urodynamics or for intravesical chemotherapy.
They were also asked whether they recorded that the risks and benefits of the procedure had been explained to the patient.
Results Respondents were divided on whether they obtained written consent for flexible cystoscopy and urethral dilatation.
Most did not obtain written consent for catheterization for retention, urodynamics, intravesical chemotherapy or suprapubic catheterization.
The policy was inconsistent both between and within urologists.
Conclusion Given the medicolegal importance of informed consent, consensus among urologists is required so that national guidelines can be developed and a more rational policy applied.
Mots-clés Pascal : Questionnaire, Relation médecin malade, Homme, Pratique professionnelle, Anesthésie locale, Traitement instrumental, Endoscopie, Exploration, Consentement éclairé, Appareil urinaire pathologie
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Questionnaire, Physician patient relation, Human, Professional practice, Local anesthesia, Instrumentation therapy, Endoscopy, Exploration, Informed consent, Urinary system disease
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 97-0257552
Code Inist : 002B30A05. Création : 11/06/1997.