Informed Consents: A Case Study

There have been concerns raised surrounding informed consents obtained during the hospitalization of James Roberts. Consents must be obtained from the patient or person authorized to consent on the patient’s behalf (Pozgar, 2016, p. 326). The following is a review of the surgical consents obtained during the recent admission. The initial consent for decompressive craniectomy was an implied consent. “If it is impossible, in an emergency, to obtain consent of the patient or someone legally authorized to give consent, the required procedure may be undertaken without liability for failure to procure consent “(Pozgar, 2016, p. 327). Mr. Roberts was incapacitated by his injury and the family could not be located for another two days. Documentation of the emergent situation and the immediate threat to life or health would be the primary requirement to
Verbal consents are sufficient if they contain the information required by statute, the patient was given an opportunity to ask questions, and those questions were answered (Pozgar, 2016, p. 326). When there is no legal guardian and a physician doubts the capacity of a patient to consent, the consent of the next of kin should be obtained (Pozgar, 2016, p. 338). This does not require the patient be judged legally incompetent. Mary, a daughter, was the only know relative. The concern surrounding this consent is who ultimately obtained the consent. Under common law the surgeon always holds full responsibility for giving the information needed to obtain informed consent (Buppert, 2016). In the Buppert article she goes on to say, “it makes no sense for a hospital to take on a duty that is clearly the surgeon’s responsibility. The surgeon would not know the specifics discussed, any surgical limitations or the adequacy of the response to questions. The consent should have been obtained by the provider performing the procedure. This consent may not have been