Informed Consent Obtainment, Malpractice Litigation, and the Potential Role of Shared Decision-making Approaches

in European Journal of Health Law
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Malpractice lawsuits are a substantial concern in health systems with miscommunication, inadequate information, and unsuccessful patient involvement in decision-making seeming to be contributing factors. This paper draws attention to the explicit role of informed consent (ic) obtainment in actualized complaint cases and to what extent novel methods to exercise ic through means of shared decision-making (sdm) and supporting tools might be applicable. A national sample of cases from the Health Professionals Disciplinary Board in Denmark is reviewed and discussed together with international legal instruments and case law. It is confirmed that patients claim their right to participate in decision-making about healthcare options. In many situations sdm and accompanying tools would apply and possibly they could sometimes prevent ic duty breaches, assist documenting ic procedures, and help avert the need for litigation.

Informed Consent Obtainment, Malpractice Litigation, and the Potential Role of Shared Decision-making Approaches

in European Journal of Health Law

Sections

References

8

Section 5 1202.

11

Birkelandsupra note 1.

13

Rules of Procedure 1447Para. 13.

16

Patientombuddet: Årsberetning 2013København: Sundhedsvæsenets Disciplinærnævn 2013; Patienterstatningen — Året i tal 2013: behandlingsskader. By way of comparison in the us since the mid 2000s annual costs including ‘defensive medicine’ expenses are estimated to be more than $50 billion (see M.M. Mello A. Chandra A.A. Gawande and D.M. Studdert ’National costs of the medical liability system’ Health Affairs 29 (2010) 1569-1577).

17

Huntington and Kuhnsupra note 1.

20

M.J. Barry‘Shared decision making: informing and involving patients to do the right thing in health care’Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 35 (2012) 90-98.

21

C. Charles A. Gafni and T. Whelan‘Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)’Social Science & Medicine 44 (1997) 681-692.

23

King and Moultonsupra note 1.

26

Bismark et al.supra note 1; Birkeland supra note 1.

36

Grubb et al. (eds.)supra note 4.

43

Durand et al.supra note 27.

47

See e.g. Jena et al.supra note 15 pp. 629-636.

48

Bismark et al.supra note 46.

50

Stacey et al.supra note 25.

51

Cf. Durand et al.supra note 27; see also e.g. S. Birkeland ‘Shared Decision Making in Interventional Radiology’ Radiology 278 (2016) 302-303.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 82 82 18
Full Text Views 6 6 6
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0