Key result
Obtaining informed consent for stroke fibrinolysis risks critical treatment delays.
Case Report
No
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Before the advent of fibrinolytic therapy as a gold standard method of care for cases of acute ischemic stroke in Romania, issues regarding legal medicine aspects involved in this area of medical expertise were already presented and, in the majority of cases, the doctors seem to be unprepared for these situations. MAIN TEXT: The present research illustrates some of the cases in which these aspects were involved, that adressed a clinical center having 6 years of professional experience in the application of fibrinolytic treatment for stroke. The following cases report either situations in which the afore mentioned therapy was not rightfully administrated or legal aspects regarding the obtainment of informed consent. CONCLUSION: Obtaining informed consent is a mandatory procedure, which takes time, to the detriment of application of fibrinolytic treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sabău et al. (2019) conducted a case report in Acute ischemic stroke. Fibrinolytic therapy was evaluated on Legal and informed consent implications. Obtaining informed consent for fibrinolytic therapy in acute ischemic stroke is a mandatory but time-consuming process that can detrimentally delay treatment.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: