PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 29, 2026British journal of surgery0 citations

SRS52 - When risk goes unspoken: an audit of consent documentation for laparoscopic appendicectomy

View Full Paper
KAKapil AgrawalShri Vile Parle Kelavani MandalJKJaspreet KaurNew Cross HospitalSTShumail TanveerThe Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust

Key Points

  • This audit aims to evaluate the completeness of consent documentation for laparoscopic appendicectomy.
  • Retrospective audit of 68 consent forms
  • Review of documentation against 17 key risks
  • Analysis of compliance with national guidelines
  • Bleeding documented in 98.5% of cases
  • Infection documented in 95.6% of cases
  • Gynecological risks documented in only 30.4% of female patients
  • Significant omission of key risks, including hernia formation and death

Abstract

Abstract Accurate and comprehensive documentation of risks during the consent process is essential to respect patient autonomy and meet national standards set by the General Medical Council (GMC) and Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) England. We conducted a retrospective audit of 68 consent forms for laparoscopic appendicectomy over a three-month period at our institution. Each form was reviewed for documentation of 17 key risks identified through national guidelines and consultant consensus, including common complications such as bleeding, infection, and conversion to open surgery, as well as specific organ injuries and intraoperative contingencies. Overall, only four risks were documented in more than 75% of cases: bleeding (98.5%), infection (95.6%), injury to nearby structures (83.8%), and conversion to open procedure (88.2%). Documentation of specific organ risks was variable, with bowel injury noted in 61.8% of forms, bladder injury in 36.8%, and ureter injury in only 22.1%. Among 46 female patients, documentation of gynecological risks was present in just 30.4%. Other important risks, including hernia formation (63.2%), death (13.2%), and need for reintervention (23.5%) were frequently omitted. These findings reveal poor compliance with GMC and RCS consent guidelines, highlighting a lack of procedure-specific and gender-specific risk documentation. In response, a procedure-specific consent template has been introduced, and a re-audit is planned to evaluate its impact on improving consent quality and compliance. This audit underscores the need for structured consent processes to ensure informed decision-making and medicolegal safety in laparoscopic appendicectomy.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Agrawal et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69c8c336de0f0f753b39dd95https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znag018.064
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1SRS55 - Improving consent form compliance in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a closed-loop audit using pre-printed risk templates2026
  2. 2411 Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy - Is Our Consenting Up to Scratch?2024
  3. 3EP427 - Are we following the RCS England Guidelines for documentation of the operation note for a laparoscopic appendicectomy: A complete audit loop2024
  4. 4SP1.6 - To facilitate the consent process efficiency for high volume low complexity cases as part of GIRFT2024
  5. 5WTP6.08 Surgical Consenting Practices in Patients Undergoing Elective Breast Surgery2025