Written consent is haphazard for minor urological procedures

HROUDA, D.
EMBERTON, M.
HAMPSON, S. J.

Department of Urology, St George's Hospital, London, UK
D. Hrouda, FRCS, Clinical Research Fellow.
M. Emberton, FRCS, Senior Registrar.
S.J. Hampson, MChir, FRCS (Urol), Consultant.

Accepted for publication 19 November 1996

Correspondence: Mr D. Hrouda, Department of Urology, St George's Hospital, Blackshaw Road, London SW17 0QT, UK.

British Journal of Urology 79(4):p 503-504, April 1997.

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.