Women's experiences of consent to induction of labour: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Induction of labour (IOL) does not require formal written consent, and little is known about how consent operates in this context. This prospective study explores pregnant women's experiences of the IOL consent process. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured, interviews with thirteen women admitted to hospital for IOL. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: 1) Voluntary nature of consent: Some women experienced genuine choice; others perceived pressure to prioritise their baby. 2) Understanding the why and how, risks and benefits: Information provision and explanation was often minimal, particularly regarding risks and alternatives to induction. The possibility of IOL failing was not discussed 3) Non-personalised information process: Few women received information specific and relevant to their circumstance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is an urgent need for healthcare professionals to be supported in actively facilitating consent consultations which enable women undergoing IOL to make a fully autonomous, informed choice. CONCLUSIONS: Women did not always experience choice about whether to be induced. This sense of disempowerment was sometimes exacerbated by inadequate information provision. The study reveals a practice imperative to address consent in IOL and we suggest there is an urgent need for HCPs to be offered high quality training specific to IOL.

Consent on the labour ward: A qualitative study of the views and experiences of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Consent on the labour ward is a complex and controversial topic which is poorly understood. Consenting labouring women is recognised as challenging and problematic, and thus, it is uncertain that pregnant women experience true informed consent during labour. This project aims to explore healthcare professionals' views and experiences of consent practice on the labour ward. DESIGN: Qualitative research performed in a tertiary hospital labour ward in Central London with 5500 patients annually. Eleven obstetricians and seven midwives participated. In-depth one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the data were analysed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: 1) The value of women's choice: healthcare professionals framed consent as an agreement process rather than an exercise of choice. Implicit paternalism was evident with some healthcare professionals imposing their own recommendations upon patients. 2) Communicating risk: many participants viewed full risk communication, including extremely rare risk disclosure as their duty to ensure the validity of obstetric consent despite the risk of overwhelming women. 3) Law and professional practice: many healthcare professionals lacked knowledge of the implications to practice of current law. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals' experiences of consent on the labour ward reflect uncertainties and ambiguities in consent practice such that it sometimes falls short of legal and professional requirements. Difficulties in discussing risk with women in an appropriate way at an appropriate time threatens the lawfulness of consent. If consent is to remain as the legal standard of autonomy, we recommend the provision of specialist training to assist professionals in providing timely consultation dialogues which endorse women's right to choose.