Introduction: Informed consent is an ethical and legal prerequisite for surgical intervention. In the United Kingdom, the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board ruling shifted the standard toward a patient-centered model, necessitating a personalized discussion of "material risks". Traditional paper-based consent is often hampered by poor legibility and loss of physical records. This study evaluates a pilot electronic consent (e-consent) system in a general surgery department through clinician feedback. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional survey was conducted among 16 clinicians at Basildon University Hospital following the completion of a pilot phase for e-consent in appendicectomy and abscess procedures. Data on efficiency, hardware reliability, and compliance with Montgomery standards were collected via Likert-scale (1-5) responses. Results: Clinicians reported that e-consent was faster than paper (mean 4.06/5) and intuitive to navigate (mean 4.13/5). Notably, clinicians reported high confidence in meeting Montgomery standards (mean 4.19/5). However, hardware availability (mean 3.25/5) and software reliability (mean 3.50/5) were identified as primary barriers. Despite these hurdles, 81.25% of participants preferred e-consent over traditional methods for future use. Conclusion: E-consent improves the standardization and legal robustness of the consenting process. Institutional investment in hardware infrastructure is essential for sustainable hospital-wide adoption.
Qavi et al. (Tue,) studied this question.