The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:2395-2400.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02877
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
The Medical-Legal Aspects of Informed Consent in Orthopaedic Surgery
Timothy Bhattacharyya, MD1,
Howard Yeon, MD, JD1 and
Mitchel B. Harris, MD2
1 Partners Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, 35 Fruit
Street, Yawkey 3600, Boston, MA 02114. E-mail address for T. Bhattacharyya:
tbhattacharyya{at}partners.org
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis
Street, Boston, MA 02115
Investigation performed at Medical Professional Mutual Insurance
Company (ProMutual), and Risk Management Foundation, Boston,
Massachusetts
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their
research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or
other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a
commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or
direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational
institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the
authors are affiliated or associated.
Background: Orthopaedic surgeons routinely obtain informed consent
prior to surgery. Legally adequate informed consent requires a thorough
discussion of treatment options and risks and proper documentation; however,
there is little data to guide orthopaedic surgeons regarding effective methods
of obtaining informed consent.
Methods: We performed a closed claims analysis on malpractice claims
involving an allegation of inadequate informed consent brought during a
twenty-four-year period with two malpractice insurers. Relevant malpractice
claims were reviewed, and data were abstracted. We then performed statistical
analyses to identify factors that positively correlated with a successful
defense.
Results: We identified twenty-eight lawsuits that included a claim
of inadequate informed consent. All of the cases involved elective orthopaedic
surgical procedures; there were no emergent cases. Three cases involved a
disputed surgical site; all three cases involved foot and ankle surgery and
resulted in an indemnity payment.
Documentation of appropriate informed consent in the office notes of the
surgeon was associated with a decreased indemnity risk (p < 0.005).
Obtaining the informed consent on the hospital ward or in the preoperative
holding area was associated with an increased indemnity risk (p < 0.004).
When informed consent was obtained in the office by the operating surgeon, the
risk of malpractice payment was significantly decreased (p < 0.004).
Conclusions: Surgeons may be able to decrease the risk of a
malpractice claim by obtaining informed consent in their offices, rather than
in the preoperative holding area, and by documenting the informed consent
discussion within their dictated office or operative notes.

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Technorati What's this?
|