Search

Background Informed consent (IC) is an essential step in helping patients be aware of consequences of their treatment decisions. With surgery, it is vitally important for patients to understand the risks and benefits of the procedure and decide accordingly. We explored whether a written IC form was provided to patients; whether they read and signed it; whether they communicated orally with the physician; whether these communications influenced patient decisions. Methods Adult postsurgical patients in nine general hospitals of Italy’s Campania Region were interviewed via a structured questionnaire between the second and seventh day after the surgery at the end of the first surgical follow up visit. Physicians who were independent from the surgical team administered the questionnaire. Results The written IC form was given to 84.5% of those interviewed. All recipients of the form signed it, either personally or through a delegate; however, 13.9% did not know/remember having done so; 51.8% said that they read it thoroughly. Of those who reported to have read it, 90.9% judged it to be clear. Of those receiving the written consent form, 52.0% had gotten it the day before the surgery at the earliest 41.1% received it some hours or immediately before the procedure. The written IC form was explained to 65.6% of the patients, and 93.9% of them received further oral information that deemed understandable. Most attention was given to the diagnosis and the type of surgical procedure, which was communicated respectively to 92.8 and 88.2% of the patients. Almost one in two patients believed that the information provided some emotional relief, while 23.2% experienced increased anxiety. Younger patients (age ≤ 60) and patients with higher levels of education were more likely to read the written IC form. Conclusions The written IC form is not sufficient in assuring patients and making them fully aware of choices they made for their health; pre-operative information that was delivered orally better served the patients’ needs. To improve the quality of communication we suggest enhancing physicians’ communication skills and for them to use structured conversation to ensure that individuals are completely informed before undergoing their procedures. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0340-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination centres in the Campania Region, southern Italy, vaccinate children with a hexavalent vaccine that contains the mandatory vaccines diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, and viral Hepatitis B. This vaccine also includes two non-mandatory vaccines, pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae type B. Information about these optional vaccines should be communicated to the parents, and informed consent should be obtained from parents before vaccination. We explored whether informed consent was delivered to the parents, whether they signed the consent form, and whether they read and acquired the information about the vaccination that their child would receive. METHODS: Childhood immunisations are provided at specific public health vaccination centres, "Unità Operative Materno-infantili's" (UOMIs). We selected four UOMI from the Campania Region where we interviewed 1039 parents bringing their children for the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd doses of hexavalent vaccine. The consent forms were collected from the four vaccination centres and were analysed with respect to clarity and completeness. RESULTS: Most of the respondents (89.5%) were mothers between 20 and 39 years of age (80.4% vs 59.6% of the fathers), they were married (87.2% vs 93.5% of the fathers), and only one-half of them were employed (50.2% vs 92.6% of the fathers). The informed consent form was received from 58.1% of the parents and signed by 52.8%, but read by 35.0% of them. Only 1.5% of parents knew which vaccines were mandatory, and 25.0% of them believed that the entire hexavalent vaccine was mandatory. When we asked the parents which non-mandatory vaccinations were administered to their children, only 0.5% indicated the Haemophilus influenzae type B and none indicated the pertussis vaccine. Thirty-six per cent of the parents replied that their child had not received any non-mandatory vaccines. No parents were informed by the operators that their children would receive non-mandatory vaccines. CONCLUSION: In our study, consent procedures did not allow parents to acquire correct information about vaccine options for their children. Furthermore, not one health care provider informed parents that their child was receiving non-mandatory vaccines. The informed consent process and the individual health care providers did not properly inform parents about the vaccines administered to their children.

Summary Objectives: In recent years numerous clinical trials have been carried out to evaluate homoeopathic therapy. Another approach to evaluating homoeopathy is to investigate its impact in primary health care, that is on outpatients to a homoeopathic centre. Methods: 609 patients on their first visit to a homoeopathic clinic from June 1995 to May 1997 received a telephone call 1 year later in which they were asked to rate their general health compared with 1 year ago. Results: 1 year after first examination 73.5% of patients reported a marked or moderate improvement in their health status. Marked improvement was significantly higher in subjects who stated they were satisfied with the care received, in females, in the 0–15-year-old age group and in patients who completed therapy. Conclusions: For conditions which are not lifethreatening, homoeopathy seems to meet patients' needs in primary health care.

PURPOSE: Chronic anal fissure may be treated by chemical or surgical sphincterotomy. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of local application of nifedipine and lidocaine ointment in healing chronic anal fissure. METHODS: The study was performed according to a prospective, randomized, double-blind design. One hundred ten patients who gave informed consent were recruited. They received a clinical examination, a questionnaire to evaluate symptoms and pain, anorectal manometry, and anoscopy. Healing of anal fissure at Day 42 of therapy was defined as the primary efficacy variable of the study. Patients treated with nifedipine (n = 55) used topical 0.3 percent nifedipine and 1.5 percent lidocaine ointment every 12 hours for 6 weeks. The control group (n = 55) received topical 1.5 percent lidocaine and 1 percent hydrocortisone acetate ointment during therapy. Anal pressures were measured by recording resting and maximal voluntary contraction pressures at baseline and at Day 21. Long-term outcomes were determined after a median follow-up of 18 months. RESULTS: Healing of chronic anal fissure was achieved after 6 weeks of therapy in 94.5 percent of the nifedipine-treated patients (P < 0.001) as opposed to 16.4 percent of the controls. Mean anal resting pressure decreased from a mean value ± standard deviation of 47.2 ± 14.6 to 42 ± 12.4 mmHg in the nifedipine group. This represents a mean reduction of 11 percent (P = 0.002). Changes of maximal voluntary contraction in nifedipine-treated patients were not significant. No changes in mean anal resting pressure and maximal voluntary contraction were observed in the control group. We did not observe any systemic side effect in patients treated with nifedipine. After the blinding was removed, recurrence of the fissure was observed in 3 of 52 patients in the nifedipine group within 1 year of treatment, and 2 of these patients healed with an additional course of topical nifedipine and lidocaine ointment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study clearly demonstrates that the therapeutic use of topical nifedipine and lidocaine ointment should be extended to the conservative treatment of chronic anal fissure.