Informed Consent for Epidural Analgesia at the Time of Labor Pain, Seems Too Late!

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastanhagh E ◽  
◽  
Behseresht A ◽  

Pain in the process of childbirth is the phenomenon mostly feared by every woman in her pregnancy, and is a major cause of dissatisfaction and embarrassing memories of labor. Usage of lumbar epidural analgesia as a very effective pain management option has solved this problem to a great extent, and its utilization has turned to common practice in most of the women hospitals worldwide. The use of lumbar epidural analgesia in labor is widespread due to its benefits in terms of effective pain relief in comparison with other labor pain treatment options [1]. Vaginal delivery is an extremely painful process accompanied with great emotional disturbance, which may not be possible for the laboring mother to focus and concentrate to understand the anesthetist explanations at that moment and sign the epidural analgesia informed consent properly. On one hand, the laboring mother expresses doubts because of uncertainty on her decision and on the other hand she desperately wants to get rid of the excruciating labor pain by any means possible. Therefore, the decision to have a neuraxial analgesia (epidural, combined spinal epidural) sounds obligatory on this condition. Each of these analgesic methods beside desirable effectiveness in pain management may have some side effects and it is obvious that each complication takes lots of time and patiently concentration for the mother to be precisely understood and the decision making is even beyond of it. Decision making process cannot get precisely completed just in labor time, so free of any upcoming complication, informed consent may not be ethically verified on labor time. Decision making capacity is a complex mental process involving both cognitive and emotional components. Sometimes this complex action is reduced to “understanding” alone. There are uncertainties about decision-making capacity (mental competence) of women in labor in relation to giving informed consent to neuraxial analgesia. Considering these parameters, sufficient information about pain management methods (advantages, side effects, the way each procedure is conducted) should be provided as part of prenatal education and the consent process must be carefully conducted to enhance mothers’ autonomy [2]. To utilize effective methods for presenting the mothers with (like multimedia modules, recorded video of the sample procedure and so on) in late pregnancy should be considered to achieve better understanding and right decision. Patient decision aids are beneficial in clinical anesthesia and studies have shown that patients feel better informed, have better knowledge, and have less anxiety, depression and decisional conflicts after using this method [3]. It has been demonstrated that using decision aids prior to the procedure can significantly reduce the decision conflict, and improve both autonomy and outcome as a united benefit in favor of laboring mothers [4]. It seems that pain-relieving methods (neuraxial and other treatment options) should be described in details at the second and third trimester of pregnancy by a team consist of midwife, anesthesia provider and obstetrician. The more time is spent on this process; the better informed consent is achieved finally. Also high quality decision aids can increase women’s familiarity with medical terminology, options for care, and an insight into personal values, thereby decreasing decisional conflicts and increase knowledge [5]. Factors like parity, pain threshold, and estimated length of labor should be considered together in the decision process to individualize the best pain treatment option for mother [6].

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastanhagh E ◽  
◽  
Behseresht A ◽  

Pain in the process of childbirth is the phenomenon mostly feared by every woman in her pregnancy, and is a major cause of dissatisfaction and embarrassing memories of labor. Usage of lumbar epidural analgesia as a very effective pain management option has solved this problem to a great extent, and its utilization has turned to common practice in most of the women hospitals worldwide. The use of lumbar epidural analgesia in labor is widespread due to its benefits in terms of effective pain relief in comparison with other labor pain treatment options [1]. Vaginal delivery is an extremely painful process accompanied with great emotional disturbance, which may not be possible for the laboring mother to focus and concentrate to understand the anesthetist explanations at that moment and sign the epidural analgesia informed consent properly. On one hand, the laboring mother expresses doubts because of uncertainty on her decision and on the other hand she desperately wants to get rid of the excruciating labor pain by any means possible. Therefore, the decision to have a neuraxial analgesia (epidural, combined spinal epidural) sounds obligatory on this condition. Each of these analgesic methods beside desirable effectiveness in pain management may have some side effects and it is obvious that each complication takes lots of time and patiently concentration for the mother to be precisely understood and the decision making is even beyond of it. Decision making process cannot get precisely completed just in labor time, so free of any upcoming complication, informed consent may not be ethically verified on labor time. Decision making capacity is a complex mental process involving both cognitive and emotional components. Sometimes this complex action is reduced to “understanding” alone. There are uncertainties about decision-making capacity (mental competence) of women in labor in relation to giving informed consent to neuraxial analgesia. Considering these parameters, sufficient information about pain management methods (advantages, side effects, the way each procedure is conducted) should be provided as part of prenatal education and the consent process must be carefully conducted to enhance mothers’ autonomy [2]. To utilize effective methods for presenting the mothers with (like multimedia modules, recorded video of the sample procedure and so on) in late pregnancy should be considered to achieve better understanding and right decision. Patient decision aids are beneficial in clinical anesthesia and studies have shown that patients feel better informed, have better knowledge, and have less anxiety, depression and decisional conflicts after using this method [3]. It has been demonstrated that using decision aids prior to the procedure can significantly reduce the decision conflict, and improve both autonomy and outcome as a united benefit in favor of laboring mothers [4]. It seems that pain-relieving methods (neuraxial and other treatment options) should be described in details at the second and third trimester of pregnancy by a team consist of midwife, anesthesia provider and obstetrician. The more time is spent on this process; the better informed consent is achieved finally. Also high quality decision aids can increase women’s familiarity with medical terminology, options for care, and an insight into personal values, thereby decreasing decisional conflicts and increase knowledge [5]. Factors like parity, pain threshold, and estimated length of labor should be considered together in the decision process to individualize the best pain treatment option for mother [6].


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maaike Alblas ◽  
Maartje Schermer ◽  
Yvonne Vergouwe ◽  
Ineke Bolt

Information of an individual's epigenome can be useful in cancer screening to enable personalised decision making on participation, treatment options and further screening strategies. However, adding this information might result in complex risk predictions on multiple diseases, unsolicited findings and information on (past) environmental exposure and behaviour. This complicates informed consent procedures and may impede autonomous decision-making. In this article we investigate and identify the specific features of epigenetic risk-stratified cancer screening that challenge the current informed consent doctrine. Subsequently we describe current and new informed consent models and the principle of respect for autonomy and argue for a specific informed consent model for epigenetic risk-stratified screening programmes. Next, we propose a framework that guides the development of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs) to support informed consent and promote autonomous choices in the specific context of epigenetic cancer screening programmes.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Mason Pope

The legal doctrine of informed consent has overwhelmingly failed to assure that the medical treatment patients get is the treatment patients want. This Article describes and defends an ongoing shift toward shared decision making processes incorporating the use of certified patient decision aids.


Author(s):  
Jonathan Pugh

Personal autonomy is often lauded as a key value in contemporary Western bioethics, and the claim that there is an important relationship between autonomy and rationality is often treated as an uncontroversial claim in this sphere. Yet, there is also considerable disagreement about how we should cash out the relationship between rationality and autonomy. In particular, it is unclear whether a rationalist view of autonomy can be compatible with legal judgments that enshrine a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment, regardless of whether ‘… the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent’. This book brings recent philosophical work on the nature of rationality to bear on the question of how we should understand autonomy in contemporary bioethics. In doing so, the author develops a new framework for thinking about the concept, one that is grounded in an understanding of the different roles that rational beliefs and rational desires have to play in personal autonomy. Furthermore, the account outlined here allows for a deeper understanding of different forms of controlling influence, and the relationship between our freedom to act, and our capacity to decide autonomously. The author contrasts his rationalist account with other prominent accounts of autonomy in bioethics, and outlines the revisionary implications it has for various practical questions in bioethics in which autonomy is a salient concern, including questions about the nature of informed consent and decision-making capacity.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apurupa Ballamudi ◽  
John Chi

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which patients and providers work together to make medical decisions with a patient-centric focus, considering available evidence, treatment options, the patient’s values and goals, and risks and benefits. It is important for all providers to understand how to effectively use SDM in their interactions with patients to improve patients’ experiences throughout their healthcare journey. There are strategies to improve communication between patients and their providers, particularly when communicating quantitative data, risks and benefits, and treatment options. Decision aids (DAs) can help patients understand complex medical information and make an informed decision. This review contains 9 figures, 4 tables and 45 references Key words: Shared decision-making, decision-making, communication, risk and benefit, patient-centered, health literacy, quality of life, decision aids, option grid, pictographs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S28-S28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan G Carpenter

Abstract Informed consent is one of the most important processes during the implementation of a clinical trial; special attention must be given to meeting the needs of persons with dementia in nursing homes who have impaired decision making capacity. We overcame several challenges during enrollment and consent of potential participants in a pilot clinical trial including: (1) the consent document was designed for legally authorized representatives however some potential participants were capable of making their own decisions; (2) the written document was lengthy yet all seven pages were required by the IRB; (3) the required legal wording was difficult to understand and deterred potential participants; and (4) the primary mode of communication was via phone. We tailored assent and informed consent procedures to persons with dementia and their legally authorized representative/surrogate decision maker to avoid risking an incomplete trial and to improve generalizability of trial results to all persons with dementia.


2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 378-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Quigley ◽  
Michael P Dillon ◽  
Stefania Fatone

Background: Shared decision making is a consultative process designed to encourage patient participation in decision making by providing accurate information about the treatment options and supporting deliberation with the clinicians about treatment options. The process can be supported by resources such as decision aids and discussion guides designed to inform and facilitate often difficult conversations. As this process increases in use, there is opportunity to raise awareness of shared decision making and the international standards used to guide the development of quality resources for use in areas of prosthetic/orthotic care. Objectives: To describe the process used to develop shared decision-making resources, using an illustrative example focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Development process: The International Patient Decision Aid Standards were used to guide the development of the decision aid and discussion guide focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Examples from these shared decision-making resources help illuminate the stages of development including scoping and design, research synthesis, iterative development of a prototype, and preliminary testing with patients and clinicians not involved in the development process. Conclusion: Lessons learnt through the process, such as using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards checklist and development guidelines, may help inform others wanting to develop similar shared decision-making resources given the applicability of shared decision making to many areas of prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice. Clinical relevance Shared decision making is a process designed to guide conversations that help patients make an informed decision about their healthcare. Raising awareness of shared decision making and the international standards for development of high-quality decision aids and discussion guides is important as the approach is introduced in prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice.


Author(s):  
Martin H.N. Tattersall ◽  
David W. Kissane

The respect of a patient’s autonomous rights within the model of patient-centred care has led to shared decision-making, rather than more paternalistic care. Understanding patient needs, preferences, and lifestyle choices are central to developing shared treatment decisions. Patients can be prepared through the use of question prompt sheets and other decision aids. Audio-recording of informative consultations further helps. A variety of factors like the patient’s age, tumour type and stage of disease, an available range of similar treatment options, and their risk-benefit ratios will impact on the use of shared decision-making. Modifiable barriers to shared decision-making can be identified. Teaching shared decision-making includes the practice of agenda setting, use of partnership statements, clarification of patient preferences, varied approaches to explaining potential treatment benefits and risks, review of patient values and lifestyle factors, and checking patient understanding–this sequence helps both clinicians and patients to optimally reach a shared treatment decision.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pete Wegier ◽  
Jaymie Varenbut ◽  
Mark Bernstein ◽  
Peter G. Lawlor ◽  
Sarina R. Isenberg

Abstract Background Towards the end of life, use of opioid analgesics becomes more common in patients to control pain and improve quality of life. While pain medication may help manage pain, unwanted cognitive side effects are frequently noted. This balancing act presents a trade-off for patients between pain relief and adverse effects, where the desire to relieve pain must be evaluated against the desire to maintain cognitive clarity and may represent a difficult decision for patients receiving palliative care. Our goal was to understand how patients’ decision making about pain medications balances the pain relief from those medications against the cognitive decline often associated with them. Methods We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients receiving home-based palliative care from a program in Toronto, Canada. Interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Thirty-one interviews were conducted. Some patients preferred cognitive preservation over pain management because of a sense that cognition is central to their identity, the desire to maintain lucidity, a desire to continue participating in work or hobbies, and fear of addiction. Conversely, some patients preferred pain management over cognitive preservation because of a desire to avoid suffering, an inability to sleep without medications, or an acceptance of some cognitive compromise. A few patients attempted to find balance through tapering drugs, limiting their use of breakthrough analgesic doses, or using alternative strategies. Conclusions Decision making around pain and pain management is a highly preference-sensitive process—with no clear right or wrong decisions, only the preferences of each patient. The findings from this study may influence the design of future patient-facing decision aids around pain management. Future studies should pilot interventions to better assist patients with this decision.


2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
Handan Birbicer ◽  
Nurcan Doruk ◽  
Yücel Uguz ◽  
Türkan Altun

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document