ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Informed consent is a continuous process of communication with the patient and not merely the signing of a form. The Irish Medical Council's Guide to Good Practice and Ethics state that no part of the consent process should be delegated to an intern unless the procedure is a minor with which the intern is very familiar and all relevant information has first been explained to the intern. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate whether practices regarding interns and consent had changed in the past five years. METHODS: An anonymous Google Forms survey was distributed to interns from all intern networks between 24-August and 26-November 2021. RESULTS: Of 854 interns, there were 147(17.2%) survey responses. 129(87.8%) participants had consented for a procedure. 111(86%) responded that they had consented for procedures that they had not witnessed before. 92(71.3%) reported that their medical supervisor did not explain procedures to them prior to obtaining consent. 128(99.2%) of interns were not usually observed by a more senior doctor when obtaining consent. 116(89.9%) were expected to obtain consent from patients on a regular basis, with 78(60.5%) feeling pressured into doing so on at least one occasion. Results were largely unchanged compared to when the same survey was circulated in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Interns remain routinely involved in the consent process without adequate training or supervision. This is unfair on our most junior doctors and on patients. Steps must be taken to ensure the IMC guidance is adhered to and this deficiency must be highlighted to Senior Clinicians.
Subject(s)
Internship and Residency , Physicians , Humans , Informed Consent , Surveys and Questionnaires , PatientsABSTRACT
Background Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is a vascular emergency with a quite low incidence, but it is associated with disproportionately more severe morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to assess the current trend in the treatment of AMI and to see if endovascular intervention is an effective treatment modality in the selected group of patients. Methods A retrospective review of patients admitted with AMI between 2007 and 2018 was performed. Outcome measures were length of stay (LOS) at hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), and post-treatment mortality. Results A total of 98 patients with AMI were admitted during the study period. Patients undergoing endovascular treatment compared with surgery were younger (62.9 ± 13.7 years vs. 69.5 ± 12.8 years; p = 0.01). Shorter LOS in hospital and ICU was observed for those treated with endovascular approach (6.8 ± 3.4 and 3.25 ± 0.5 days) compared to the surgical group (25 ± 8.6 and 12.8 ± 26.8 days; p < 0.001). Out of 39 patients requiring ICU admission, 48.7% were surgically treated and 10.2% underwent endovascular intervention (p < 0.001). Mortality associated with surgery was 30.6% compared to only 6.6% with endovascular intervention (p < 0.001). Between 2007 and 2012, only one patient underwent endovascular intervention and 20 underwent surgery compared to 14 patients treated with endovascular approach and 16 with surgery between 2013 and 2018. Conclusion In this non-randomized, retrospective case series, patients with endovascular treatment fared clinically better and the intervention was found to be safe and feasible in the selected group of patients. We suggest a preference for this modality where possible. At our hospital, a trend favoring this approach is apparent during the last six years.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: With among the lowest urologist per population ratios in Europe, the demand for urology specialist review in Ireland far exceeds supply. Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) account for a significant number of referrals. The traditional paradigm of every patient being reviewed in a consultant-led clinic is unsustainable. New models of care with nurse-led clinics represent an opportunity to optimise limited resources. METHODS: Existing long-waiting male LUTS referrals were triaged to a specialist nurse-led LUTS clinic. After urology CNS assessment, charts were reviewed by a consultant urologist and a plan formulated. Relevant data were prospectively collected and analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-eight new male patients with LUTS were seen over a 6-month period with an average waiting time of 15.8 months. Patients were assessed with uroflowmetry, IPSS and DRE. Mean age was 64, IPSS 14.5, Qmax 18.3 ml/s and PVR 89 ml. Thirty patients (52%) were discharged directly with lifestyle modification and medical therapy. Twenty-eight patients (48%) required one or more further investigations and subsequent review; 11 had flexible cystoscopy, 4 had urodynamics, 5 had prostate MRI, and 2 patients were listed for surgery (TURP and circumcision). The remaining 10 patients were for review post trial of lifestyle modifications and/or medical treatment. After review/investigations, 4 more patients were discharged. A total of 32 patients (55%) were discharged or listed for surgery after initial assessment. This total increased to 62% after a second review/investigations. CONCLUSION: Introduction of a CNS-led LUTS clinic has significantly reduced the number of patients requiring follow-up in general urology clinics, representing a quality improvement in service provision.
