SAN FRANCISCO – Bursectomy was not found to be superior to omentectomy for improving survival in patients with subserosal/serosal gastric cancer in a Japanese randomized phase III study.

The procedure – the dissection of the peritoneal lining covering the pancreas and anterior plane of the transverse mesocolon to prevent peritoneal metastasis – was common worldwide and considered standard in Japan from the 1950s until the mid-1990s, but was replaced by omentectomy following publication of reports questioning its value, according to Masanori Terashima, MD, of Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi, Japan.

However, interest in bursectomy was rekindled when a 2012 noninferiority phase II study suggested that bursectomy may improve survival; the authors concluded that it should not be abandoned as a futile procedure until more definitive data could be obtained (Gastric Cancer. 2012;15[1]:42-8).

“So based on this result, [Japanese Clinical Oncology Group] conducted a large-scale randomized phase III trial [JCOG1001] to evaluate the efficacy of bursectomy. The objective of this study was to confirm the superiority of bursectomy for clinical T3 or clinical T4a gastric cancer patients in terms of overall survival,” Dr. Terashima said at the symposium, sponsored by ASCO, ASTRO, the American Gastroenterological Association, and Society of Surgical Oncology.

At a planned interim analysis when 522 patients had been enrolled, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee approved continued enrollment. However, at a second interim analysis when 54% of expected events had been observed, the committee recommended early release of the survival results because “there was little possibility of demonstration of the superiority of bursectomy,” he said.

Overall 3-year survival was 83.3% among 601 patients in the bursectomy arm, compared with 86% in 600 patients in the nonbursectomy arm (hazard ratio, 1.07). The predictive probability of superiority of bursectomy was 12.7%.

Study subjects were adults aged 20-80 years (median of 65-66 years) with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the stomach and clinical T3 or T4 disease. They enrolled from 57 institutions and were intraoperatively randomized to the bursectomy or nonbursectomy arm after confirmation of tumor stage. All received adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 for 1 year for pathologic stage II/III disease.

Patients with bulky nodal metastases, Borrmann type 4 and 8 cm or larger Borrmann type 3 tumors were excluded, as their poor prognosis made them candidates for other clinical trials, Dr. Terashima said.

Patients’ background and operative procedures were well balanced between the arms, he noted.

For those in the bursectomy group, operation time was longer (median, 254 vs. 222 minutes), and blood loss was larger (330 vs. 230 mL), although the incidence of blood transfusion was not significantly different between the groups (4.5% vs. 4.8%).

The incidence of grade 3 or higher complications was slightly higher in the bursectomy arm (13.3% vs. 11.6%). This was due largely to the incidence of pancreatic fistulas, which was nearly double in the bursectomy arm (4.8% vs. 2.5% ).

Mortality was “quite low” in both groups (0.2 vs. 0.8%).

“There was no significant difference in overall survival between the arms. Bursectomy seemed to be a bit inferior to the nonbursectomy arm. Relapse-free survival also demonstrated no significant difference between the arms. Again, bursectomy seemed to be a bit worse than nonbursectomy,” he said.

The most common site of recurrence for all patient was the peritoneum, with 63 and 56 patients in the bursectomy and nonbursectomy arms, respectively, experiencing peritoneal recurrence.

“We could not detect any subgroup who may have a benefit from bursectomy,” Dr. Terashima said.

“Bursectomy is not recommended as a standard treatment for clinical T3 or clinical T4 gastric cancer, while complete omentectomy remains a part of standard procedure,” he concluded.

Dr. Terashima reported receiving honoraria, and/or research funding from Chugai Pharma, Eisai; Lilly, Otsuka, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Bursectomy was not found to be superior to omentectomy for improving survival in patients with subserosal/serosal gastric cancer in a Japanese randomized phase III study.

The procedure – the dissection of the peritoneal lining covering the pancreas and anterior plane of the transverse mesocolon to prevent peritoneal metastasis – was common worldwide and considered standard in Japan from the 1950s until the mid-1990s, but was replaced by omentectomy following publication of reports questioning its value, according to Masanori Terashima, MD, of Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi, Japan.

However, interest in bursectomy was rekindled when a 2012 noninferiority phase II study suggested that bursectomy may improve survival; the authors concluded that it should not be abandoned as a futile procedure until more definitive data could be obtained (Gastric Cancer. 2012;15[1]:42-8).

“So based on this result, [Japanese Clinical Oncology Group] conducted a large-scale randomized phase III trial [JCOG1001] to evaluate the efficacy of bursectomy. The objective of this study was to confirm the superiority of bursectomy for clinical T3 or clinical T4a gastric cancer patients in terms of overall survival,” Dr. Terashima said at the symposium, sponsored by ASCO, ASTRO, the American Gastroenterological Association, and Society of Surgical Oncology.

At a planned interim analysis when 522 patients had been enrolled, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee approved continued enrollment. However, at a second interim analysis when 54% of expected events had been observed, the committee recommended early release of the survival results because “there was little possibility of demonstration of the superiority of bursectomy,” he said.

Overall 3-year survival was 83.3% among 601 patients in the bursectomy arm, compared with 86% in 600 patients in the nonbursectomy arm (hazard ratio, 1.07). The predictive probability of superiority of bursectomy was 12.7%.

Study subjects were adults aged 20-80 years (median of 65-66 years) with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the stomach and clinical T3 or T4 disease. They enrolled from 57 institutions and were intraoperatively randomized to the bursectomy or nonbursectomy arm after confirmation of tumor stage. All received adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 for 1 year for pathologic stage II/III disease.

Patients with bulky nodal metastases, Borrmann type 4 and 8 cm or larger Borrmann type 3 tumors were excluded, as their poor prognosis made them candidates for other clinical trials, Dr. Terashima said.

Patients’ background and operative procedures were well balanced between the arms, he noted.

For those in the bursectomy group, operation time was longer (median, 254 vs. 222 minutes), and blood loss was larger (330 vs. 230 mL), although the incidence of blood transfusion was not significantly different between the groups (4.5% vs. 4.8%).

The incidence of grade 3 or higher complications was slightly higher in the bursectomy arm (13.3% vs. 11.6%). This was due largely to the incidence of pancreatic fistulas, which was nearly double in the bursectomy arm (4.8% vs. 2.5% ).

Mortality was “quite low” in both groups (0.2 vs. 0.8%).

“There was no significant difference in overall survival between the arms. Bursectomy seemed to be a bit inferior to the nonbursectomy arm. Relapse-free survival also demonstrated no significant difference between the arms. Again, bursectomy seemed to be a bit worse than nonbursectomy,” he said.

The most common site of recurrence for all patient was the peritoneum, with 63 and 56 patients in the bursectomy and nonbursectomy arms, respectively, experiencing peritoneal recurrence.

“We could not detect any subgroup who may have a benefit from bursectomy,” Dr. Terashima said.

“Bursectomy is not recommended as a standard treatment for clinical T3 or clinical T4 gastric cancer, while complete omentectomy remains a part of standard procedure,” he concluded.

Dr. Terashima reported receiving honoraria, and/or research funding from Chugai Pharma, Eisai; Lilly, Otsuka, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Bursectomy was not found to be superior to omentectomy for improving survival in patients with subserosal/serosal gastric cancer in a Japanese randomized phase III study.

The procedure – the dissection of the peritoneal lining covering the pancreas and anterior plane of the transverse mesocolon to prevent peritoneal metastasis – was common worldwide and considered standard in Japan from the 1950s until the mid-1990s, but was replaced by omentectomy following publication of reports questioning its value, according to Masanori Terashima, MD, of Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi, Japan.

However, interest in bursectomy was rekindled when a 2012 noninferiority phase II study suggested that bursectomy may improve survival; the authors concluded that it should not be abandoned as a futile procedure until more definitive data could be obtained (Gastric Cancer. 2012;15[1]:42-8).

“So based on this result, [Japanese Clinical Oncology Group] conducted a large-scale randomized phase III trial [JCOG1001] to evaluate the efficacy of bursectomy. The objective of this study was to confirm the superiority of bursectomy for clinical T3 or clinical T4a gastric cancer patients in terms of overall survival,” Dr. Terashima said at the symposium, sponsored by ASCO, ASTRO, the American Gastroenterological Association, and Society of Surgical Oncology.

At a planned interim analysis when 522 patients had been enrolled, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee approved continued enrollment. However, at a second interim analysis when 54% of expected events had been observed, the committee recommended early release of the survival results because “there was little possibility of demonstration of the superiority of bursectomy,” he said.

Overall 3-year survival was 83.3% among 601 patients in the bursectomy arm, compared with 86% in 600 patients in the nonbursectomy arm (hazard ratio, 1.07). The predictive probability of superiority of bursectomy was 12.7%.

Study subjects were adults aged 20-80 years (median of 65-66 years) with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the stomach and clinical T3 or T4 disease. They enrolled from 57 institutions and were intraoperatively randomized to the bursectomy or nonbursectomy arm after confirmation of tumor stage. All received adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 for 1 year for pathologic stage II/III disease.

Patients with bulky nodal metastases, Borrmann type 4 and 8 cm or larger Borrmann type 3 tumors were excluded, as their poor prognosis made them candidates for other clinical trials, Dr. Terashima said.

Patients’ background and operative procedures were well balanced between the arms, he noted.

For those in the bursectomy group, operation time was longer (median, 254 vs. 222 minutes), and blood loss was larger (330 vs. 230 mL), although the incidence of blood transfusion was not significantly different between the groups (4.5% vs. 4.8%).

The incidence of grade 3 or higher complications was slightly higher in the bursectomy arm (13.3% vs. 11.6%). This was due largely to the incidence of pancreatic fistulas, which was nearly double in the bursectomy arm (4.8% vs. 2.5% ).

Mortality was “quite low” in both groups (0.2 vs. 0.8%).

“There was no significant difference in overall survival between the arms. Bursectomy seemed to be a bit inferior to the nonbursectomy arm. Relapse-free survival also demonstrated no significant difference between the arms. Again, bursectomy seemed to be a bit worse than nonbursectomy,” he said.

The most common site of recurrence for all patient was the peritoneum, with 63 and 56 patients in the bursectomy and nonbursectomy arms, respectively, experiencing peritoneal recurrence.

“We could not detect any subgroup who may have a benefit from bursectomy,” Dr. Terashima said.

“Bursectomy is not recommended as a standard treatment for clinical T3 or clinical T4 gastric cancer, while complete omentectomy remains a part of standard procedure,” he concluded.

Dr. Terashima reported receiving honoraria, and/or research funding from Chugai Pharma, Eisai; Lilly, Otsuka, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha.

[email protected]

Parabens have been eliminated from many personal care products because of health concerns, but from a contact dermatitis standpoint, they have “very low rates of irritancy and allergenicity” and are considered safe and well tolerated, according to Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

“I almost never see a positive reaction to parabens,” Dr. Silverberg said in a presentation on contact dermatitis at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

However, the confirmation of estrogenic activity associated with parabens has led to their replacement in many products – especially personal care products – with other

Parabens have been eliminated from many personal care products because of health concerns, but from a contact dermatitis standpoint, they have “very low rates of irritancy and allergenicity” and are considered safe and well tolerated, according to Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

“I almost never see a positive reaction to parabens,” Dr. Silverberg said in a presentation on contact dermatitis at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

However, the confirmation of estrogenic activity associated with parabens has led to their replacement in many products – especially personal care products – with other

Parabens have been eliminated from many personal care products because of health concerns, but from a contact dermatitis standpoint, they have “very low rates of irritancy and allergenicity” and are considered safe and well tolerated, according to Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

“I almost never see a positive reaction to parabens,” Dr. Silverberg said in a presentation on contact dermatitis at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

However, the confirmation of estrogenic activity associated with parabens has led to their replacement in many products – especially personal care products – with other

WAILEA, HAWAII – When sunscreens are tested for their SPF, testers apply 2 mg/cm², but most people use only 20%-50% of that amount, which significantly reduces their protection, according to Dr. Julie C. Harper, director of the Dermatology & Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala.

The correct amount is 1 teaspoon of sunscreen on the face/head/neck, 1 teaspoon on each arm, 2 teaspoons on the torso, and 2 teaspoons on each leg, Dr. Harper said in a presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation. Reapplication every 90 minutes to 2 hours is key to effective protection, Dr. Harper said.

However, “most people use less than one bottle of sunscreen per year,” she noted.

Prompting patients to improve their sunscreen use involves disproving some myths, Dr. Harper pointed out. When patients cite concerns about low vitamin D as a reason to avoid sunscreens, she recommended that they be counseled that there are three sources of vitamin D: foods such as fatty fish, vitamin D fortified foods, cheese, and egg yolks; vitamin D supplements; and skin synthesis through UVB exposure; and that only one of these – UVB exposure – is a known carcinogen.

[email protected]

WAILEA, HAWAII – When sunscreens are tested for their SPF, testers apply 2 mg/cm², but most people use only 20%-50% of that amount, which significantly reduces their protection, according to Dr. Julie C. Harper, director of the Dermatology & Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala.

The correct amount is 1 teaspoon of sunscreen on the face/head/neck, 1 teaspoon on each arm, 2 teaspoons on the torso, and 2 teaspoons on each leg, Dr. Harper said in a presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation. Reapplication every 90 minutes to 2 hours is key to effective protection, Dr. Harper said.

However, “most people use less than one bottle of sunscreen per year,” she noted.

Prompting patients to improve their sunscreen use involves disproving some myths, Dr. Harper pointed out. When patients cite concerns about low vitamin D as a reason to avoid sunscreens, she recommended that they be counseled that there are three sources of vitamin D: foods such as fatty fish, vitamin D fortified foods, cheese, and egg yolks; vitamin D supplements; and skin synthesis through UVB exposure; and that only one of these – UVB exposure – is a known carcinogen.

[email protected]

WAILEA, HAWAII – When sunscreens are tested for their SPF, testers apply 2 mg/cm², but most people use only 20%-50% of that amount, which significantly reduces their protection, according to Dr. Julie C. Harper, director of the Dermatology & Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala.

The correct amount is 1 teaspoon of sunscreen on the face/head/neck, 1 teaspoon on each arm, 2 teaspoons on the torso, and 2 teaspoons on each leg, Dr. Harper said in a presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation. Reapplication every 90 minutes to 2 hours is key to effective protection, Dr. Harper said.

However, “most people use less than one bottle of sunscreen per year,” she noted.

Prompting patients to improve their sunscreen use involves disproving some myths, Dr. Harper pointed out. When patients cite concerns about low vitamin D as a reason to avoid sunscreens, she recommended that they be counseled that there are three sources of vitamin D: foods such as fatty fish, vitamin D fortified foods, cheese, and egg yolks; vitamin D supplements; and skin synthesis through UVB exposure; and that only one of these – UVB exposure – is a known carcinogen.

[email protected]

CASE: Surgeon accused of performing tubal ligation without consent

A patient was scheduled for an elective cesarean delivery to be performed by her ObGyn (Dr. Surgeon) at the nearby medical center. The patient was asked to sign an electronic signature pad in her ObGyn’s office, which transposed her signature onto an electronic form that she could not see at the time. She signed it. The consent was not printed out in the office but was added to her electronic medical record, and a copy was sent to her via email. Among other things, the consent included, “[Name] hereby agrees that all appropriate medical and surgical procedures as determined by the physicians and others in this hospital are in my best interest. No further consent is required to any of the treatment in this hospital.”

In the hospital, Dr. Surgeon spoke preoper- atively with the patient about cesarean delivery, the various risks and benefits, and the possibility and risks of an alternative trial of labor. Dr. Surgeon noted the conversation in the patient’s chart.

A nurse brought a standard hard copy “Zee Hospital Surgical Consent Form” to the patient. In a relevant part it provided, “I hereby consent to the surgical procedure Dr. Surgeon has discussed with me: _______” (the blank was filled in with “cesarean delivery”). The form continued: “He/She has explained the risks and benefits. I also authorize Dr. Surgeon, and such assistants as he/she may select, to perform this procedure. In his/her medical judgment, if additional procedures are appropriate, I hereby consent to their performance, in addition to the procedures listed in this form.” The patient signed the form.

While Dr. Surgeon was scrubbing for the delivery, the patient’s husband (also a surgeon at the hospital; Dr. Husband), stopped by, thanked Dr. Surgeon, and said, “Oh, by the way, my wife would like you to do a tubal ligation as well—she really wants it for health reasons. Her chronic hypertension skyrocketed during this pregnancy, and we don’t want any more children.”

“She didn’t mention that a little earlier while I was talking with her,” replied Dr. Surgeon, “but I can see how it would have slipped her mind.”

Dr. Surgeon performed the cesarean delivery and tubal ligation. All went well, with a healthy baby and mother. Several months later, the patient and Dr. Husband separated and sought divorce.

The patient, surprised by the cost of the hospital bill (Dr. Surgeon did not bill for his surgical services as a professional courtesy), was astonished to see a charge related to tubal ligation. Knowing how common billing mistakes were at Zee Hospital, she called to have the bill corrected. The clerk informed her that her medical record showed that a tubal ligation had been performed and that the bill was correct.

The patient sued Dr. Surgeon, Zee Hospital, and her (now former) husband, Dr. Husband, both for the cesarean delivery and the tubal ligation. Her claims are primarily based on the lack of informed consent.

What’s the verdict?

The patient likely has a strong case regarding the tubal ligation claim, but a weak case related to the cesarean delivery claim.

Read the ethical, medical, and legal implications of this case

Ethical and medical considerations

Although this case seems too strange for fiction, the basic facts are taken from events that did occur at a major institution. The puzzling features of this case are meant to be a cautionary tale: it is easy in the rush with the pressure of clinical practice to view informed consent as a bothersome technical detail. Yet as the following discussion suggests, adhering closely to the tenets of informed consent protects not only the fundamental interests of the patient but also the physicians and medical institutions.

Informed consent serves as protective communication

Informed consent at its core is a “process of communication” that involves you as the health care provider and the patient. It provides authority for an activity based upon an understanding of what that activity entails.^1,2 Aspects of informed consent, from the physician−patient perspective, include the following:

• disclosure
• comprehension
• voluntary choice
• authorization.

In one other sense, informed consent is based on a fiduciary relationship between the ObGyn and patient.³ Overall, the process consists of an educational communication by the physician to the patient. Ideally, providers perceive the process from an ethical point of view that has been formalized by cases and statutes.⁴

Informed consent protects one of the most basic values of medicine and society: autonomy. From the perspective of moral philosophers, the principle of autonomy establishes the moral right to choose and follow one’s own plan for life and action.^5,6 For ObGyns, the patient’s autonomy and her ability to participate in the medical decision-making process is of paramount importance. Informed consent is also a reflection of trust inherent to the physician−patient relationship.⁴

Informed consent is too often viewed as a mere legal formality. In truth, it melds legal and ethical values and concerns. The President’s Commission reflected this, noting that informed consent is rooted in “the fundamental recognition that adults are entitled to accept or reject health care intervention(s) on the basis of their own personal values and in furtherance of their own personal goals.”⁷

The historic perspective of informed consent dates back to Egyptian, Greek, and Roman eras. Dhar and Dhar suggest that the concept of “physicians’ love for humanity—philantropia” dates back to Plato and is complemented by the term “philotechnia” (love of medicine), all of which have evolved into today’s use of the terms “risks, benefits, and alternatives.”⁸

We emphasize that informed consent is much more than a legal concept. It has strong clinical roots because it provides an opportunity for physicians to improve communication with their patients. Informed consent is not a form; it is a process to be taken seriously.

Legal principles of informed consent

The famous New York case of Mary Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, in 1914, heralded a principle that remains central in American law. Justice Benjamin Cardozo, writing for the majority, held that, “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”⁹ The surgeon in the Schloendorff case had undertaken a gynecologic procedure—removal of a fibroid tumor—without patient consent. (In that case the hospital rather than the physician was sued, but the principle clearly applied to the physician.)

Over the last century, the American law of informed consent has developed in a number of ways.¹⁰ Lack of informed consent is now almost always considered a form of negligence rather than an intentional tort of battery. The details of the legal requirements vary from state to state as a result of statutory changes and court decisions. But in one way or another, to be “informed,” consent generally must include 4 things:

1. a description of the procedure or intervention that is proposed
2. the risks and benefits of the proposal—the focus here is generally on the risks of the treatment
3. alternatives, if there are any (eg, pharmacologic vs surgical treatment)
4. the consequences of not undertaking the proposed treatment (eg, the refusal to have a Papanicolaou smear).

A fifth point might be added—the offer to answer any questions or provide additional information.

These 4 or 5 basic items and the expanded list are efforts to simply describe the information that a reasonable person would need in order to make a decision that represents the patient’s values, personality, and preferences. (Informed consent is in some ways an ongoing process—since a patient may withdraw his/her consent.)

Exceptions to the informed consent requirement

Before turning to the facts in the hypothetical case, it is worth noting that there are 2 common exceptions to the informed consent requirement. The first is an emergency exception. When someone requires immediate attention and the patient is not conscious or capable of consent (nor is a “next of kin” available), treatment may proceed.

The second is therapeutic exception. Its designation is narrow, and it is risky to rely on it except in extreme circumstances. But when the very process of informing the patient of all the risks of a proposed treatment would create significant additional risks for the patient, the consent process may be modified. For example, for an extremely suggestable patient, describing certain risks might, in a psychosomatic way, cause the risk to be realized. In such cases, the record must be clearly documented. It is generally best to discuss the matter with a family member or other surrogate decision maker.

Read what went wrong in this case

What went wrong with consent in this case?

Our case illustrates a number of problems that occur when informed consent is not properly completed.

The electronic signature on the broadly stated consent form the patient initially signed in the office was nearly useless. She did not know what she was signing, did not have any chance to read it before signing, and was provided no help with any of the information factors of informed consent.

The surgical consent form is among the most interesting elements of this case. The form itself was seriously flawed because it contained no real evidence that the patient received information about the risks and alternatives. If the form is all there was, it would be a problem. But the conversation that Dr. Surgeon documented with the patient seemed to provide the basic elements of informed consent, including discussion of risks and benefits.

Oral informed consent is recognized in most states. To his credit, Dr. Surgeon appropriately recorded the conversation in the record. The risk of oral informed consent not backed up by text signature is that, if a dispute arises about the consent, it is difficult to prove details of what was said. (There was, of course, no such dispute about the cesarean delivery as it turned out in this case.)

Technological add-ons to consent: Pros and cons

Video and computer software are increasingly becoming an integral part of the informed consent process, and may improve comprehension by patients.¹¹ Electronic consent may be helpful in proving what the patient was told during the consent process. A difficulty can result from overreliance on the electronic aspect and forgetting the human part of the informed consent equation. The health care team often can be productive parts of the informed consent process, but the surgeon must take ultimate responsibility for the informed consent.¹²

Was there informed consent for the tubal ligation?

The major problem in this case, of course, was the tubal ligation. It does not take much of an understanding of the legal niceties of informed consent to know that there was no real consent to this procedure. Dr. Husband did not have authority to consent, and his comment to Dr. Surgeon did not qualify as consent.

The hospital consent form may appear to provide some legal protection (“In his medical judgment, if additional procedures are appropriate, I hereby consent to doing those….”). Such language was once common in informed consent forms, but it offered little real consent except for trivial incidental processes (removal of an appendix) or where there was a real medical necessity for doing an expanded procedure (removal of a previously unknown cancerous growth).

Thus, Dr. Surgeon performed the sterilization without consent and may well be liable for that part of the surgery even though it did not turn out badly in a medical sense. If not for the tubal ligation, the damages would probably have been trivial. The real loss here is not a medical injury; it is the loss of reproductive capacity.

Protecting reproductive capacity. Modern law has been especially sensitive to protecting decisions regarding reproductive capacity. Therefore, the absence of clear consent to permanent sterilization is legally problematic. Dr. Surgeon may claim that he reasonably believed that the husband could give surrogate consent and it was too late to check with the patient herself. This situation does not fit well with the emergency exception, and it appears from the facts that Dr. Surgeon acted without informed consent to the sterilization.

Was it negligence or battery?

Dr. Surgeon. The most likely basis for liability for Dr. Surgeon is negligence. There is some argument that the tort of battery is a possibility because there was no consent at all for the sterilization. The claim would be that it was not the “information” that was lacking; it was the consent itself. The fact that Dr. Surgeon did not charge for his services would not absolve him of liability.

Dr. Husband. The potential liability of Dr. Husband is complicated by questions of whether he was acting in the capacity of a physician (which would likely involve the question of whether his malpractice insurance would be available), the degree to which he was acting in good faith, and facts we do not have in this case. If Dr. Husband gave consent (and thereby “caused”) the sterilization knowing that his wife did not want to have it or because of animus toward her (they were about to be separated and divorced, after all), there is the possibility of liability. (In some states a form of interspousal liability might complicate some of these claims—but that is a topic for another day.) He essentially took action for the purpose of wrongly causing the sterilization—which may be a battery (an intentional offensive or harmful touching). The legal rules around battery allow punitive damages as well as compensatory damages. In addition, many malpractice insurance policies provide limited coverage for intentional torts. To complicate matters further, it is not clear that Dr. Husband’s actions were related to his practice of medicine in any event (although Dr. Surgeon might claim that Dr. Husband’s expressed concern about his wife’s hypertension was enough to create a malpractice issue if Dr. Surgeon did not perform the verbally requested tubal ligation).

If, as we have speculated, Dr. Husband’s actions were motivated by improper personal considerations at the expense of a patient, he may also face medical board complaints from the patient. It is plausible that a state law makes it a criminal offense to wrongfully (or fraudulently) consent to medical treatment, particularly if related to reproductive capacity.

The hospital may face liability on several grounds, depending in part on the relationships between the hospital, Dr. Surgeon, and Dr. Husband. If Dr. Surgeon is an employee or agent of the hospital, he would be liable for his negligence. Even if Dr. Surgeon is technically an independent contractor, the failure of the hospital to offer more oversight concerning the surgical procedures in its facilities could give rise to a claim of negligence.

As to Dr. Husband, many of the same considerations are present. In addition, even if he is an agent of the hospital, the hospital may claim that his actions (especially if motivated by personal considerations) were a “lark of his own” and not in the course of his employment by the hospital.

Read about the clinical opportunity of informed consent

The clinical opportunity of informed consent

More than a technical legal doctrine, informed consent provides ObGyns an important opportunity for better communications with patients, and is a chance to create reasonable expectations and a more therapeutic relationship that involves the patient in care and decision making. It is likely that engaging the patient in good informed consent processes can set the stage for improved outcomes.

Interactive dialogue with the patient is one advised approach.¹⁰ This undertaking in part reflects that, as patients have more ready access to information in the digital age, they are positioned to play a more active role in health care decision making.

The benefits of informed consent are likely to be greatest if you view the process not as a technical legal requirement but as an excellent opportunity to engage the patient in her own care and treatment. Planning, intervention, and evaluation of care options as well as education regarding the medical problem at hand are integral to the informed consent process. And, of course, the right to consent is a “basic patient right” that in a sense guarantees that he/she has the right to make informed decisions regarding one’s care.⁶

Special considerations

Informed consent most often is associated with but not limited to surgical procedures (often performed with the use of surgical instruments and/or devices). It applies to diagnostic interventions as well as treatment. The more invasive or risky an intervention, the more important it is that the information is thorough.^14,15

Pharmaceuticals have informed consent issues. The theory has been that pharmaceutical companies inform physicians of the risks and instructions for the use of pharmaceuticals and the physicians inform the patients. Indeed, traditionally pharmaceutical companies have gained immunity for “failure to warn” patients because the physicians were the “learned intermediaries” providing information to the public. Patient package inserts and pharmacists have taken over the informational role, but informed consent does apply to pharmaceuticals.

It is also worth noting that informed consent in any formal research study or the trial of new techniques, compounds, or devices requires a special process of approval by an institutional review board.

Set the stage for best outcomes

The main objective of informed consent is promoting the autonomy of your patient. That requires that she understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives associated with the procedure and the risks associated with a refusal of treatment. Done properly, this can result in your patient gaining confidence and trust in you as her provider.

Informed consent is a process that reflects our interactions with our patients. It is part of the broader commitment by the medical profession to “first do no harm.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

CASE: Surgeon accused of performing tubal ligation without consent

A patient was scheduled for an elective cesarean delivery to be performed by her ObGyn (Dr. Surgeon) at the nearby medical center. The patient was asked to sign an electronic signature pad in her ObGyn’s office, which transposed her signature onto an electronic form that she could not see at the time. She signed it. The consent was not printed out in the office but was added to her electronic medical record, and a copy was sent to her via email. Among other things, the consent included, “[Name] hereby agrees that all appropriate medical and surgical procedures as determined by the physicians and others in this hospital are in my best interest. No further consent is required to any of the treatment in this hospital.”

In the hospital, Dr. Surgeon spoke preoper- atively with the patient about cesarean delivery, the various risks and benefits, and the possibility and risks of an alternative trial of labor. Dr. Surgeon noted the conversation in the patient’s chart.

A nurse brought a standard hard copy “Zee Hospital Surgical Consent Form” to the patient. In a relevant part it provided, “I hereby consent to the surgical procedure Dr. Surgeon has discussed with me: _______” (the blank was filled in with “cesarean delivery”). The form continued: “He/She has explained the risks and benefits. I also authorize Dr. Surgeon, and such assistants as he/she may select, to perform this procedure. In his/her medical judgment, if additional procedures are appropriate, I hereby consent to their performance, in addition to the procedures listed in this form.” The patient signed the form.

While Dr. Surgeon was scrubbing for the delivery, the patient’s husband (also a surgeon at the hospital; Dr. Husband), stopped by, thanked Dr. Surgeon, and said, “Oh, by the way, my wife would like you to do a tubal ligation as well—she really wants it for health reasons. Her chronic hypertension skyrocketed during this pregnancy, and we don’t want any more children.”

“She didn’t mention that a little earlier while I was talking with her,” replied Dr. Surgeon, “but I can see how it would have slipped her mind.”

Dr. Surgeon performed the cesarean delivery and tubal ligation. All went well, with a healthy baby and mother. Several months later, the patient and Dr. Husband separated and sought divorce.

The patient, surprised by the cost of the hospital bill (Dr. Surgeon did not bill for his surgical services as a professional courtesy), was astonished to see a charge related to tubal ligation. Knowing how common billing mistakes were at Zee Hospital, she called to have the bill corrected. The clerk informed her that her medical record showed that a tubal ligation had been performed and that the bill was correct.

The patient sued Dr. Surgeon, Zee Hospital, and her (now former) husband, Dr. Husband, both for the cesarean delivery and the tubal ligation. Her claims are primarily based on the lack of informed consent.

What’s the verdict?

The patient likely has a strong case regarding the tubal ligation claim, but a weak case related to the cesarean delivery claim.

Read the ethical, medical, and legal implications of this case

Ethical and medical considerations

Although this case seems too strange for fiction, the basic facts are taken from events that did occur at a major institution. The puzzling features of this case are meant to be a cautionary tale: it is easy in the rush with the pressure of clinical practice to view informed consent as a bothersome technical detail. Yet as the following discussion suggests, adhering closely to the tenets of informed consent protects not only the fundamental interests of the patient but also the physicians and medical institutions.

Informed consent serves as protective communication

Informed consent at its core is a “process of communication” that involves you as the health care provider and the patient. It provides authority for an activity based upon an understanding of what that activity entails.^1,2 Aspects of informed consent, from the physician−patient perspective, include the following:

• disclosure
• comprehension
• voluntary choice
• authorization.

In one other sense, informed consent is based on a fiduciary relationship between the ObGyn and patient.³ Overall, the process consists of an educational communication by the physician to the patient. Ideally, providers perceive the process from an ethical point of view that has been formalized by cases and statutes.⁴

Informed consent protects one of the most basic values of medicine and society: autonomy. From the perspective of moral philosophers, the principle of autonomy establishes the moral right to choose and follow one’s own plan for life and action.^5,6 For ObGyns, the patient’s autonomy and her ability to participate in the medical decision-making process is of paramount importance. Informed consent is also a reflection of trust inherent to the physician−patient relationship.⁴

Informed consent is too often viewed as a mere legal formality. In truth, it melds legal and ethical values and concerns. The President’s Commission reflected this, noting that informed consent is rooted in “the fundamental recognition that adults are entitled to accept or reject health care intervention(s) on the basis of their own personal values and in furtherance of their own personal goals.”⁷

The historic perspective of informed consent dates back to Egyptian, Greek, and Roman eras. Dhar and Dhar suggest that the concept of “physicians’ love for humanity—philantropia” dates back to Plato and is complemented by the term “philotechnia” (love of medicine), all of which have evolved into today’s use of the terms “risks, benefits, and alternatives.”⁸

We emphasize that informed consent is much more than a legal concept. It has strong clinical roots because it provides an opportunity for physicians to improve communication with their patients. Informed consent is not a form; it is a process to be taken seriously.

Legal principles of informed consent

The famous New York case of Mary Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, in 1914, heralded a principle that remains central in American law. Justice Benjamin Cardozo, writing for the majority, held that, “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”⁹ The surgeon in the Schloendorff case had undertaken a gynecologic procedure—removal of a fibroid tumor—without patient consent. (In that case the hospital rather than the physician was sued, but the principle clearly applied to the physician.)

Over the last century, the American law of informed consent has developed in a number of ways.¹⁰ Lack of informed consent is now almost always considered a form of negligence rather than an intentional tort of battery. The details of the legal requirements vary from state to state as a result of statutory changes and court decisions. But in one way or another, to be “informed,” consent generally must include 4 things:

1. a description of the procedure or intervention that is proposed
2. the risks and benefits of the proposal—the focus here is generally on the risks of the treatment
3. alternatives, if there are any (eg, pharmacologic vs surgical treatment)
4. the consequences of not undertaking the proposed treatment (eg, the refusal to have a Papanicolaou smear).

A fifth point might be added—the offer to answer any questions or provide additional information.

These 4 or 5 basic items and the expanded list are efforts to simply describe the information that a reasonable person would need in order to make a decision that represents the patient’s values, personality, and preferences. (Informed consent is in some ways an ongoing process—since a patient may withdraw his/her consent.)

Exceptions to the informed consent requirement

Before turning to the facts in the hypothetical case, it is worth noting that there are 2 common exceptions to the informed consent requirement. The first is an emergency exception. When someone requires immediate attention and the patient is not conscious or capable of consent (nor is a “next of kin” available), treatment may proceed.

The second is therapeutic exception. Its designation is narrow, and it is risky to rely on it except in extreme circumstances. But when the very process of informing the patient of all the risks of a proposed treatment would create significant additional risks for the patient, the consent process may be modified. For example, for an extremely suggestable patient, describing certain risks might, in a psychosomatic way, cause the risk to be realized. In such cases, the record must be clearly documented. It is generally best to discuss the matter with a family member or other surrogate decision maker.

Read what went wrong in this case

What went wrong with consent in this case?

Our case illustrates a number of problems that occur when informed consent is not properly completed.

The electronic signature on the broadly stated consent form the patient initially signed in the office was nearly useless. She did not know what she was signing, did not have any chance to read it before signing, and was provided no help with any of the information factors of informed consent.

The surgical consent form is among the most interesting elements of this case. The form itself was seriously flawed because it contained no real evidence that the patient received information about the risks and alternatives. If the form is all there was, it would be a problem. But the conversation that Dr. Surgeon documented with the patient seemed to provide the basic elements of informed consent, including discussion of risks and benefits.

Oral informed consent is recognized in most states. To his credit, Dr. Surgeon appropriately recorded the conversation in the record. The risk of oral informed consent not backed up by text signature is that, if a dispute arises about the consent, it is difficult to prove details of what was said. (There was, of course, no such dispute about the cesarean delivery as it turned out in this case.)

Technological add-ons to consent: Pros and cons

Video and computer software are increasingly becoming an integral part of the informed consent process, and may improve comprehension by patients.¹¹ Electronic consent may be helpful in proving what the patient was told during the consent process. A difficulty can result from overreliance on the electronic aspect and forgetting the human part of the informed consent equation. The health care team often can be productive parts of the informed consent process, but the surgeon must take ultimate responsibility for the informed consent.¹²

Was there informed consent for the tubal ligation?

The major problem in this case, of course, was the tubal ligation. It does not take much of an understanding of the legal niceties of informed consent to know that there was no real consent to this procedure. Dr. Husband did not have authority to consent, and his comment to Dr. Surgeon did not qualify as consent.

The hospital consent form may appear to provide some legal protection (“In his medical judgment, if additional procedures are appropriate, I hereby consent to doing those….”). Such language was once common in informed consent forms, but it offered little real consent except for trivial incidental processes (removal of an appendix) or where there was a real medical necessity for doing an expanded procedure (removal of a previously unknown cancerous growth).

Thus, Dr. Surgeon performed the sterilization without consent and may well be liable for that part of the surgery even though it did not turn out badly in a medical sense. If not for the tubal ligation, the damages would probably have been trivial. The real loss here is not a medical injury; it is the loss of reproductive capacity.

Protecting reproductive capacity. Modern law has been especially sensitive to protecting decisions regarding reproductive capacity. Therefore, the absence of clear consent to permanent sterilization is legally problematic. Dr. Surgeon may claim that he reasonably believed that the husband could give surrogate consent and it was too late to check with the patient herself. This situation does not fit well with the emergency exception, and it appears from the facts that Dr. Surgeon acted without informed consent to the sterilization.

Was it negligence or battery?

Dr. Surgeon. The most likely basis for liability for Dr. Surgeon is negligence. There is some argument that the tort of battery is a possibility because there was no consent at all for the sterilization. The claim would be that it was not the “information” that was lacking; it was the consent itself. The fact that Dr. Surgeon did not charge for his services would not absolve him of liability.

Dr. Husband. The potential liability of Dr. Husband is complicated by questions of whether he was acting in the capacity of a physician (which would likely involve the question of whether his malpractice insurance would be available), the degree to which he was acting in good faith, and facts we do not have in this case. If Dr. Husband gave consent (and thereby “caused”) the sterilization knowing that his wife did not want to have it or because of animus toward her (they were about to be separated and divorced, after all), there is the possibility of liability. (In some states a form of interspousal liability might complicate some of these claims—but that is a topic for another day.) He essentially took action for the purpose of wrongly causing the sterilization—which may be a battery (an intentional offensive or harmful touching). The legal rules around battery allow punitive damages as well as compensatory damages. In addition, many malpractice insurance policies provide limited coverage for intentional torts. To complicate matters further, it is not clear that Dr. Husband’s actions were related to his practice of medicine in any event (although Dr. Surgeon might claim that Dr. Husband’s expressed concern about his wife’s hypertension was enough to create a malpractice issue if Dr. Surgeon did not perform the verbally requested tubal ligation).

If, as we have speculated, Dr. Husband’s actions were motivated by improper personal considerations at the expense of a patient, he may also face medical board complaints from the patient. It is plausible that a state law makes it a criminal offense to wrongfully (or fraudulently) consent to medical treatment, particularly if related to reproductive capacity.

The hospital may face liability on several grounds, depending in part on the relationships between the hospital, Dr. Surgeon, and Dr. Husband. If Dr. Surgeon is an employee or agent of the hospital, he would be liable for his negligence. Even if Dr. Surgeon is technically an independent contractor, the failure of the hospital to offer more oversight concerning the surgical procedures in its facilities could give rise to a claim of negligence.

As to Dr. Husband, many of the same considerations are present. In addition, even if he is an agent of the hospital, the hospital may claim that his actions (especially if motivated by personal considerations) were a “lark of his own” and not in the course of his employment by the hospital.

Read about the clinical opportunity of informed consent

The clinical opportunity of informed consent

More than a technical legal doctrine, informed consent provides ObGyns an important opportunity for better communications with patients, and is a chance to create reasonable expectations and a more therapeutic relationship that involves the patient in care and decision making. It is likely that engaging the patient in good informed consent processes can set the stage for improved outcomes.

Interactive dialogue with the patient is one advised approach.¹⁰ This undertaking in part reflects that, as patients have more ready access to information in the digital age, they are positioned to play a more active role in health care decision making.

The benefits of informed consent are likely to be greatest if you view the process not as a technical legal requirement but as an excellent opportunity to engage the patient in her own care and treatment. Planning, intervention, and evaluation of care options as well as education regarding the medical problem at hand are integral to the informed consent process. And, of course, the right to consent is a “basic patient right” that in a sense guarantees that he/she has the right to make informed decisions regarding one’s care.⁶

Special considerations

Informed consent most often is associated with but not limited to surgical procedures (often performed with the use of surgical instruments and/or devices). It applies to diagnostic interventions as well as treatment. The more invasive or risky an intervention, the more important it is that the information is thorough.^14,15

Pharmaceuticals have informed consent issues. The theory has been that pharmaceutical companies inform physicians of the risks and instructions for the use of pharmaceuticals and the physicians inform the patients. Indeed, traditionally pharmaceutical companies have gained immunity for “failure to warn” patients because the physicians were the “learned intermediaries” providing information to the public. Patient package inserts and pharmacists have taken over the informational role, but informed consent does apply to pharmaceuticals.

It is also worth noting that informed consent in any formal research study or the trial of new techniques, compounds, or devices requires a special process of approval by an institutional review board.

Set the stage for best outcomes

The main objective of informed consent is promoting the autonomy of your patient. That requires that she understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives associated with the procedure and the risks associated with a refusal of treatment. Done properly, this can result in your patient gaining confidence and trust in you as her provider.

Informed consent is a process that reflects our interactions with our patients. It is part of the broader commitment by the medical profession to “first do no harm.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

CASE: Surgeon accused of performing tubal ligation without consent

A patient was scheduled for an elective cesarean delivery to be performed by her ObGyn (Dr. Surgeon) at the nearby medical center. The patient was asked to sign an electronic signature pad in her ObGyn’s office, which transposed her signature onto an electronic form that she could not see at the time. She signed it. The consent was not printed out in the office but was added to her electronic medical record, and a copy was sent to her via email. Among other things, the consent included, “[Name] hereby agrees that all appropriate medical and surgical procedures as determined by the physicians and others in this hospital are in my best interest. No further consent is required to any of the treatment in this hospital.”

In the hospital, Dr. Surgeon spoke preoper- atively with the patient about cesarean delivery, the various risks and benefits, and the possibility and risks of an alternative trial of labor. Dr. Surgeon noted the conversation in the patient’s chart.

A nurse brought a standard hard copy “Zee Hospital Surgical Consent Form” to the patient. In a relevant part it provided, “I hereby consent to the surgical procedure Dr. Surgeon has discussed with me: _______” (the blank was filled in with “cesarean delivery”). The form continued: “He/She has explained the risks and benefits. I also authorize Dr. Surgeon, and such assistants as he/she may select, to perform this procedure. In his/her medical judgment, if additional procedures are appropriate, I hereby consent to their performance, in addition to the procedures listed in this form.” The patient signed the form.

While Dr. Surgeon was scrubbing for the delivery, the patient’s husband (also a surgeon at the hospital; Dr. Husband), stopped by, thanked Dr. Surgeon, and said, “Oh, by the way, my wife would like you to do a tubal ligation as well—she really wants it for health reasons. Her chronic hypertension skyrocketed during this pregnancy, and we don’t want any more children.”

“She didn’t mention that a little earlier while I was talking with her,” replied Dr. Surgeon, “but I can see how it would have slipped her mind.”

Dr. Surgeon performed the cesarean delivery and tubal ligation. All went well, with a healthy baby and mother. Several months later, the patient and Dr. Husband separated and sought divorce.

The patient, surprised by the cost of the hospital bill (Dr. Surgeon did not bill for his surgical services as a professional courtesy), was astonished to see a charge related to tubal ligation. Knowing how common billing mistakes were at Zee Hospital, she called to have the bill corrected. The clerk informed her that her medical record showed that a tubal ligation had been performed and that the bill was correct.

The patient sued Dr. Surgeon, Zee Hospital, and her (now former) husband, Dr. Husband, both for the cesarean delivery and the tubal ligation. Her claims are primarily based on the lack of informed consent.

What’s the verdict?

The patient likely has a strong case regarding the tubal ligation claim, but a weak case related to the cesarean delivery claim.

Read the ethical, medical, and legal implications of this case

Ethical and medical considerations

Although this case seems too strange for fiction, the basic facts are taken from events that did occur at a major institution. The puzzling features of this case are meant to be a cautionary tale: it is easy in the rush with the pressure of clinical practice to view informed consent as a bothersome technical detail. Yet as the following discussion suggests, adhering closely to the tenets of informed consent protects not only the fundamental interests of the patient but also the physicians and medical institutions.

Informed consent serves as protective communication

Informed consent at its core is a “process of communication” that involves you as the health care provider and the patient. It provides authority for an activity based upon an understanding of what that activity entails.^1,2 Aspects of informed consent, from the physician−patient perspective, include the following:

• disclosure
• comprehension
• voluntary choice
• authorization.

In one other sense, informed consent is based on a fiduciary relationship between the ObGyn and patient.³ Overall, the process consists of an educational communication by the physician to the patient. Ideally, providers perceive the process from an ethical point of view that has been formalized by cases and statutes.⁴

Informed consent protects one of the most basic values of medicine and society: autonomy. From the perspective of moral philosophers, the principle of autonomy establishes the moral right to choose and follow one’s own plan for life and action.^5,6 For ObGyns, the patient’s autonomy and her ability to participate in the medical decision-making process is of paramount importance. Informed consent is also a reflection of trust inherent to the physician−patient relationship.⁴

Informed consent is too often viewed as a mere legal formality. In truth, it melds legal and ethical values and concerns. The President’s Commission reflected this, noting that informed consent is rooted in “the fundamental recognition that adults are entitled to accept or reject health care intervention(s) on the basis of their own personal values and in furtherance of their own personal goals.”⁷

The historic perspective of informed consent dates back to Egyptian, Greek, and Roman eras. Dhar and Dhar suggest that the concept of “physicians’ love for humanity—philantropia” dates back to Plato and is complemented by the term “philotechnia” (love of medicine), all of which have evolved into today’s use of the terms “risks, benefits, and alternatives.”⁸

We emphasize that informed consent is much more than a legal concept. It has strong clinical roots because it provides an opportunity for physicians to improve communication with their patients. Informed consent is not a form; it is a process to be taken seriously.

Legal principles of informed consent

The famous New York case of Mary Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, in 1914, heralded a principle that remains central in American law. Justice Benjamin Cardozo, writing for the majority, held that, “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”⁹ The surgeon in the Schloendorff case had undertaken a gynecologic procedure—removal of a fibroid tumor—without patient consent. (In that case the hospital rather than the physician was sued, but the principle clearly applied to the physician.)

Over the last century, the American law of informed consent has developed in a number of ways.¹⁰ Lack of informed consent is now almost always considered a form of negligence rather than an intentional tort of battery. The details of the legal requirements vary from state to state as a result of statutory changes and court decisions. But in one way or another, to be “informed,” consent generally must include 4 things:

1. a description of the procedure or intervention that is proposed
2. the risks and benefits of the proposal—the focus here is generally on the risks of the treatment
3. alternatives, if there are any (eg, pharmacologic vs surgical treatment)
4. the consequences of not undertaking the proposed treatment (eg, the refusal to have a Papanicolaou smear).

A fifth point might be added—the offer to answer any questions or provide additional information.

These 4 or 5 basic items and the expanded list are efforts to simply describe the information that a reasonable person would need in order to make a decision that represents the patient’s values, personality, and preferences. (Informed consent is in some ways an ongoing process—since a patient may withdraw his/her consent.)

Exceptions to the informed consent requirement

Before turning to the facts in the hypothetical case, it is worth noting that there are 2 common exceptions to the informed consent requirement. The first is an emergency exception. When someone requires immediate attention and the patient is not conscious or capable of consent (nor is a “next of kin” available), treatment may proceed.

The second is therapeutic exception. Its designation is narrow, and it is risky to rely on it except in extreme circumstances. But when the very process of informing the patient of all the risks of a proposed treatment would create significant additional risks for the patient, the consent process may be modified. For example, for an extremely suggestable patient, describing certain risks might, in a psychosomatic way, cause the risk to be realized. In such cases, the record must be clearly documented. It is generally best to discuss the matter with a family member or other surrogate decision maker.

Read what went wrong in this case

What went wrong with consent in this case?

Our case illustrates a number of problems that occur when informed consent is not properly completed.

The electronic signature on the broadly stated consent form the patient initially signed in the office was nearly useless. She did not know what she was signing, did not have any chance to read it before signing, and was provided no help with any of the information factors of informed consent.

The surgical consent form is among the most interesting elements of this case. The form itself was seriously flawed because it contained no real evidence that the patient received information about the risks and alternatives. If the form is all there was, it would be a problem. But the conversation that Dr. Surgeon documented with the patient seemed to provide the basic elements of informed consent, including discussion of risks and benefits.

Oral informed consent is recognized in most states. To his credit, Dr. Surgeon appropriately recorded the conversation in the record. The risk of oral informed consent not backed up by text signature is that, if a dispute arises about the consent, it is difficult to prove details of what was said. (There was, of course, no such dispute about the cesarean delivery as it turned out in this case.)

Technological add-ons to consent: Pros and cons

Video and computer software are increasingly becoming an integral part of the informed consent process, and may improve comprehension by patients.¹¹ Electronic consent may be helpful in proving what the patient was told during the consent process. A difficulty can result from overreliance on the electronic aspect and forgetting the human part of the informed consent equation. The health care team often can be productive parts of the informed consent process, but the surgeon must take ultimate responsibility for the informed consent.¹²

Was there informed consent for the tubal ligation?

The major problem in this case, of course, was the tubal ligation. It does not take much of an understanding of the legal niceties of informed consent to know that there was no real consent to this procedure. Dr. Husband did not have authority to consent, and his comment to Dr. Surgeon did not qualify as consent.

The hospital consent form may appear to provide some legal protection (“In his medical judgment, if additional procedures are appropriate, I hereby consent to doing those….”). Such language was once common in informed consent forms, but it offered little real consent except for trivial incidental processes (removal of an appendix) or where there was a real medical necessity for doing an expanded procedure (removal of a previously unknown cancerous growth).

Thus, Dr. Surgeon performed the sterilization without consent and may well be liable for that part of the surgery even though it did not turn out badly in a medical sense. If not for the tubal ligation, the damages would probably have been trivial. The real loss here is not a medical injury; it is the loss of reproductive capacity.

Protecting reproductive capacity. Modern law has been especially sensitive to protecting decisions regarding reproductive capacity. Therefore, the absence of clear consent to permanent sterilization is legally problematic. Dr. Surgeon may claim that he reasonably believed that the husband could give surrogate consent and it was too late to check with the patient herself. This situation does not fit well with the emergency exception, and it appears from the facts that Dr. Surgeon acted without informed consent to the sterilization.

Was it negligence or battery?

Dr. Surgeon. The most likely basis for liability for Dr. Surgeon is negligence. There is some argument that the tort of battery is a possibility because there was no consent at all for the sterilization. The claim would be that it was not the “information” that was lacking; it was the consent itself. The fact that Dr. Surgeon did not charge for his services would not absolve him of liability.

Dr. Husband. The potential liability of Dr. Husband is complicated by questions of whether he was acting in the capacity of a physician (which would likely involve the question of whether his malpractice insurance would be available), the degree to which he was acting in good faith, and facts we do not have in this case. If Dr. Husband gave consent (and thereby “caused”) the sterilization knowing that his wife did not want to have it or because of animus toward her (they were about to be separated and divorced, after all), there is the possibility of liability. (In some states a form of interspousal liability might complicate some of these claims—but that is a topic for another day.) He essentially took action for the purpose of wrongly causing the sterilization—which may be a battery (an intentional offensive or harmful touching). The legal rules around battery allow punitive damages as well as compensatory damages. In addition, many malpractice insurance policies provide limited coverage for intentional torts. To complicate matters further, it is not clear that Dr. Husband’s actions were related to his practice of medicine in any event (although Dr. Surgeon might claim that Dr. Husband’s expressed concern about his wife’s hypertension was enough to create a malpractice issue if Dr. Surgeon did not perform the verbally requested tubal ligation).

If, as we have speculated, Dr. Husband’s actions were motivated by improper personal considerations at the expense of a patient, he may also face medical board complaints from the patient. It is plausible that a state law makes it a criminal offense to wrongfully (or fraudulently) consent to medical treatment, particularly if related to reproductive capacity.

The hospital may face liability on several grounds, depending in part on the relationships between the hospital, Dr. Surgeon, and Dr. Husband. If Dr. Surgeon is an employee or agent of the hospital, he would be liable for his negligence. Even if Dr. Surgeon is technically an independent contractor, the failure of the hospital to offer more oversight concerning the surgical procedures in its facilities could give rise to a claim of negligence.

As to Dr. Husband, many of the same considerations are present. In addition, even if he is an agent of the hospital, the hospital may claim that his actions (especially if motivated by personal considerations) were a “lark of his own” and not in the course of his employment by the hospital.

Read about the clinical opportunity of informed consent

The clinical opportunity of informed consent

More than a technical legal doctrine, informed consent provides ObGyns an important opportunity for better communications with patients, and is a chance to create reasonable expectations and a more therapeutic relationship that involves the patient in care and decision making. It is likely that engaging the patient in good informed consent processes can set the stage for improved outcomes.

Interactive dialogue with the patient is one advised approach.¹⁰ This undertaking in part reflects that, as patients have more ready access to information in the digital age, they are positioned to play a more active role in health care decision making.

The benefits of informed consent are likely to be greatest if you view the process not as a technical legal requirement but as an excellent opportunity to engage the patient in her own care and treatment. Planning, intervention, and evaluation of care options as well as education regarding the medical problem at hand are integral to the informed consent process. And, of course, the right to consent is a “basic patient right” that in a sense guarantees that he/she has the right to make informed decisions regarding one’s care.⁶

Special considerations

Informed consent most often is associated with but not limited to surgical procedures (often performed with the use of surgical instruments and/or devices). It applies to diagnostic interventions as well as treatment. The more invasive or risky an intervention, the more important it is that the information is thorough.^14,15

Pharmaceuticals have informed consent issues. The theory has been that pharmaceutical companies inform physicians of the risks and instructions for the use of pharmaceuticals and the physicians inform the patients. Indeed, traditionally pharmaceutical companies have gained immunity for “failure to warn” patients because the physicians were the “learned intermediaries” providing information to the public. Patient package inserts and pharmacists have taken over the informational role, but informed consent does apply to pharmaceuticals.

It is also worth noting that informed consent in any formal research study or the trial of new techniques, compounds, or devices requires a special process of approval by an institutional review board.

Set the stage for best outcomes

The main objective of informed consent is promoting the autonomy of your patient. That requires that she understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives associated with the procedure and the risks associated with a refusal of treatment. Done properly, this can result in your patient gaining confidence and trust in you as her provider.

Informed consent is a process that reflects our interactions with our patients. It is part of the broader commitment by the medical profession to “first do no harm.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Postoperative ileus is a common complication following abdominal surgery, particularly for patients undergoing laparotomy. Ileus is frustrating for patients and providers alike, and its occurrence may prolong the length of hospital stay, increase the cost of care, worsen patient satisfaction, and potentially delay postoperative treatments, such as chemotherapy for patients with gynecologic malignancies. The etiology of ileus is  multifactorial, but it is thought to be caused primarily by a local inflammatory response from mechanical handling and irritation of the bowel. Although various interventions, such as laxatives, peripheral mu antagonists, and chewing gum, have been shown to reduce the occurrence of ileus, the effectiveness of these interventions varies, and ileus remains a major source of morbidity.¹ 

Details of the study

To investigate whether coffee consumption accelerates recovery of bowel function following surgery, Güngördük and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial of coffee consumption after laparotomy with hysterectomy and staging for patients with gynecologic malignancies. This intervention avoids costs associated with drugs such as oral mu antagonists.

The trial included 114 women; after surgery, 58 were assigned to consume coffee 3 times daily and 56 received routine postoperative care without coffee consumption. The primary outcome measure was the time to the first passage of flatus after surgery. Time to first bowel movement and time to tolerance of a solid diet were secondary outcomes.

The results of this trial are consistent with prior study findings in colorectal surgery.² Güngördük and associates found that patients in the coffee-consumption group, compared with controls, had reduced the time to flatus by 12 hours (mean [SD] time to flatus, 30.2 [8.0] vs 40.2 [12.1] hours; P<.001), shortened time to full diet by 1.3 days (mean [SD] time to tolerate food, 3.4 [1.2] vs 4.7 [1.6] days; P<.001), reduced time to first bowel movement by 12 hours (43.1 [9.4] vs 58.5 [17.0] hours; P<.001), and shortened length of hospital stay by 1 day. Symptoms of ileus were reduced from 52% to 14% with coffee consumption.

Study limitation. An important weakness of this study is that although the authors defined the severity of ileus by time to resolution, they did not define what constituted a diagnosis of ileus in the first place.

Unanswered questions. Coffee is a known diarrhetic, so it is not unexpected that its use shortened time to flatus and first bowel movement. What is not known, however, is whether coffee consumption improves recovery. The significance of a 1-day reduction in hospital stay is unclear given the relatively prolonged hospitalization (6 to 7 days) seen in this investigation of patients with mixed gynecologic malignancies who underwent staging only. In contrast, another study showed that, for patients managed within an enhanced recovery pathway (a multimodal perioperative care enhancement protocol), median length of stay was 4 days for patients who underwent staging alone and 5 days for patients with ovarian cancer (40% underwent enteric resections).³ Thus, the effects of coffee consumption are unclear for patients managed with an optimized perioperative pathway.

The improvement in oral intake is also of questionable significance since these patients tolerated a solid diet 3 to 4 days after surgery, compared with the evening of surgery for most patients managed with enhanced recovery.

Incisional injection of liposomal bupivacaine has been associated with a reduction in the rate of ileus from 22% to 11% after complex cytoreduction for ovarian cancer when added to an existing enhanced recovery pathway; rates were only 5% for patients undergoing staging alone.⁴ These findings may be due to the significant reduction in opioid use that accompanied the use of liposomal bupivacaine.  

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Postoperative ileus is a common complication following abdominal surgery, particularly for patients undergoing laparotomy. Ileus is frustrating for patients and providers alike, and its occurrence may prolong the length of hospital stay, increase the cost of care, worsen patient satisfaction, and potentially delay postoperative treatments, such as chemotherapy for patients with gynecologic malignancies. The etiology of ileus is  multifactorial, but it is thought to be caused primarily by a local inflammatory response from mechanical handling and irritation of the bowel. Although various interventions, such as laxatives, peripheral mu antagonists, and chewing gum, have been shown to reduce the occurrence of ileus, the effectiveness of these interventions varies, and ileus remains a major source of morbidity.¹ 

Details of the study

To investigate whether coffee consumption accelerates recovery of bowel function following surgery, Güngördük and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial of coffee consumption after laparotomy with hysterectomy and staging for patients with gynecologic malignancies. This intervention avoids costs associated with drugs such as oral mu antagonists.

The trial included 114 women; after surgery, 58 were assigned to consume coffee 3 times daily and 56 received routine postoperative care without coffee consumption. The primary outcome measure was the time to the first passage of flatus after surgery. Time to first bowel movement and time to tolerance of a solid diet were secondary outcomes.

The results of this trial are consistent with prior study findings in colorectal surgery.² Güngördük and associates found that patients in the coffee-consumption group, compared with controls, had reduced the time to flatus by 12 hours (mean [SD] time to flatus, 30.2 [8.0] vs 40.2 [12.1] hours; P<.001), shortened time to full diet by 1.3 days (mean [SD] time to tolerate food, 3.4 [1.2] vs 4.7 [1.6] days; P<.001), reduced time to first bowel movement by 12 hours (43.1 [9.4] vs 58.5 [17.0] hours; P<.001), and shortened length of hospital stay by 1 day. Symptoms of ileus were reduced from 52% to 14% with coffee consumption.

Study limitation. An important weakness of this study is that although the authors defined the severity of ileus by time to resolution, they did not define what constituted a diagnosis of ileus in the first place.

Unanswered questions. Coffee is a known diarrhetic, so it is not unexpected that its use shortened time to flatus and first bowel movement. What is not known, however, is whether coffee consumption improves recovery. The significance of a 1-day reduction in hospital stay is unclear given the relatively prolonged hospitalization (6 to 7 days) seen in this investigation of patients with mixed gynecologic malignancies who underwent staging only. In contrast, another study showed that, for patients managed within an enhanced recovery pathway (a multimodal perioperative care enhancement protocol), median length of stay was 4 days for patients who underwent staging alone and 5 days for patients with ovarian cancer (40% underwent enteric resections).³ Thus, the effects of coffee consumption are unclear for patients managed with an optimized perioperative pathway.

The improvement in oral intake is also of questionable significance since these patients tolerated a solid diet 3 to 4 days after surgery, compared with the evening of surgery for most patients managed with enhanced recovery.

Incisional injection of liposomal bupivacaine has been associated with a reduction in the rate of ileus from 22% to 11% after complex cytoreduction for ovarian cancer when added to an existing enhanced recovery pathway; rates were only 5% for patients undergoing staging alone.⁴ These findings may be due to the significant reduction in opioid use that accompanied the use of liposomal bupivacaine.  

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Postoperative ileus is a common complication following abdominal surgery, particularly for patients undergoing laparotomy. Ileus is frustrating for patients and providers alike, and its occurrence may prolong the length of hospital stay, increase the cost of care, worsen patient satisfaction, and potentially delay postoperative treatments, such as chemotherapy for patients with gynecologic malignancies. The etiology of ileus is  multifactorial, but it is thought to be caused primarily by a local inflammatory response from mechanical handling and irritation of the bowel. Although various interventions, such as laxatives, peripheral mu antagonists, and chewing gum, have been shown to reduce the occurrence of ileus, the effectiveness of these interventions varies, and ileus remains a major source of morbidity.¹ 

Details of the study

To investigate whether coffee consumption accelerates recovery of bowel function following surgery, Güngördük and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial of coffee consumption after laparotomy with hysterectomy and staging for patients with gynecologic malignancies. This intervention avoids costs associated with drugs such as oral mu antagonists.

The trial included 114 women; after surgery, 58 were assigned to consume coffee 3 times daily and 56 received routine postoperative care without coffee consumption. The primary outcome measure was the time to the first passage of flatus after surgery. Time to first bowel movement and time to tolerance of a solid diet were secondary outcomes.

The results of this trial are consistent with prior study findings in colorectal surgery.² Güngördük and associates found that patients in the coffee-consumption group, compared with controls, had reduced the time to flatus by 12 hours (mean [SD] time to flatus, 30.2 [8.0] vs 40.2 [12.1] hours; P<.001), shortened time to full diet by 1.3 days (mean [SD] time to tolerate food, 3.4 [1.2] vs 4.7 [1.6] days; P<.001), reduced time to first bowel movement by 12 hours (43.1 [9.4] vs 58.5 [17.0] hours; P<.001), and shortened length of hospital stay by 1 day. Symptoms of ileus were reduced from 52% to 14% with coffee consumption.

Study limitation. An important weakness of this study is that although the authors defined the severity of ileus by time to resolution, they did not define what constituted a diagnosis of ileus in the first place.

Unanswered questions. Coffee is a known diarrhetic, so it is not unexpected that its use shortened time to flatus and first bowel movement. What is not known, however, is whether coffee consumption improves recovery. The significance of a 1-day reduction in hospital stay is unclear given the relatively prolonged hospitalization (6 to 7 days) seen in this investigation of patients with mixed gynecologic malignancies who underwent staging only. In contrast, another study showed that, for patients managed within an enhanced recovery pathway (a multimodal perioperative care enhancement protocol), median length of stay was 4 days for patients who underwent staging alone and 5 days for patients with ovarian cancer (40% underwent enteric resections).³ Thus, the effects of coffee consumption are unclear for patients managed with an optimized perioperative pathway.

The improvement in oral intake is also of questionable significance since these patients tolerated a solid diet 3 to 4 days after surgery, compared with the evening of surgery for most patients managed with enhanced recovery.

Incisional injection of liposomal bupivacaine has been associated with a reduction in the rate of ileus from 22% to 11% after complex cytoreduction for ovarian cancer when added to an existing enhanced recovery pathway; rates were only 5% for patients undergoing staging alone.⁴ These findings may be due to the significant reduction in opioid use that accompanied the use of liposomal bupivacaine.  

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

A pair of new studies offer mixed results regarding the use of the rheumatoid arthritis drug abatacept to treat two forms of large-vessel vasculitis: It appears to help patients with giant cell arteritis but not those with the rarer Takayasu’s arteritis.

“The results from the GCA [giant cell arteritis] study found that treatment with abatacept [Orencia] combined with prednisone resulted in a lower rate of relapse than treatment with prednisone alone,” said Carol A. Langford, MD, lead author of both studies, which were conducted by the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium. She is chair in rheumatic and immunologic diseases and director of the Center for Vasculitis Care and Research at the Cleveland Clinic.

A pair of new studies offer mixed results regarding the use of the rheumatoid arthritis drug abatacept to treat two forms of large-vessel vasculitis: It appears to help patients with giant cell arteritis but not those with the rarer Takayasu’s arteritis.

“The results from the GCA [giant cell arteritis] study found that treatment with abatacept [Orencia] combined with prednisone resulted in a lower rate of relapse than treatment with prednisone alone,” said Carol A. Langford, MD, lead author of both studies, which were conducted by the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium. She is chair in rheumatic and immunologic diseases and director of the Center for Vasculitis Care and Research at the Cleveland Clinic.

A pair of new studies offer mixed results regarding the use of the rheumatoid arthritis drug abatacept to treat two forms of large-vessel vasculitis: It appears to help patients with giant cell arteritis but not those with the rarer Takayasu’s arteritis.

“The results from the GCA [giant cell arteritis] study found that treatment with abatacept [Orencia] combined with prednisone resulted in a lower rate of relapse than treatment with prednisone alone,” said Carol A. Langford, MD, lead author of both studies, which were conducted by the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium. She is chair in rheumatic and immunologic diseases and director of the Center for Vasculitis Care and Research at the Cleveland Clinic.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) intended that women have access to critical preventive health services without a copay or deductible. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) was asked to help identify those critical preventive women’s health services. In 2011, the IOM Committee on Preventive Services for Women recommended that all women have access to 9 preventive services, among them¹:

• screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)
• human papilloma virus testing
• contraceptive methods and counseling
• well-woman visits.

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services agreed to update the recommended preventive services every 5 years.

In March 2016, HRSA entered into a 5-year cooperative agreement with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to update the guidelines and to develop additional recommendations to enhance women’s health.² ACOG launched the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) to develop the 2016 update.

The 5-year grant with HRSA will address many more preventive health services for women across their lifespan as well as implementation strategies so that women receive consistent and appropriate care, regardless of the health care provider’s specialty. The WPSI recognizes that the selection of a provider for well-woman care will be determined as much by a woman’s needs and preferences as by her access to health care services and health plan availability.

The WPSI draft recommendations were released for public comment in September 2016,² and HRSA approved the recommendations in December 2016.³ In this editorial, I provide a look at which organizations comprise the WPSI and a summary of the 9 recommended preventive health services.

Who makes up the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative?

The WPSI is a collaboration between professional societies and consumer organizations. The goal of the WPSI is “to promote health over the course of a woman’s lifetime through disease prevention and preventive healthcare.” The WPSI advisory panel provides oversight to the effort and the multidisciplinary steering committee develops the recommendations. The WPSI advisory panel includes leaders and experts from 4 major professional organizations, whose members provide the majority of women’s health care in the United States:

• ACOG
• American College of Physicians (ACP)
• American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)
• National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health (NPWH).

The multidisciplinary steering committee includes the members of the advisory panel, representatives from 17 professional and consumer organizations, a patient representative, and representatives from 6 federal agencies. The WPSI is currently chaired by Jeanne Conry, MD, PhD, past president of ACOG. The steering committee used evidence-based best practices to develop the guidelines and relied heavily on the foundation provided by the 2011 IOM report.¹

The 9 WPSI recommendations

Much of the text below is directly quoted from the final recommendations. When a recommendation is paraphrased it is not placed in quotations.

Recommendation 1: Breast cancer screening for average-risk women

“Average-risk women should initiate mammography screening for breast cancer no earlier than age 40 and no later than age 50 years. Screeningmammography should occur at least biennially and as frequently as annually. Screening should continue through at least age 74 years and age alone should not be the basis to stop screening.”

Decisions about when to initiate screening for women between 40 and 50 years of age, how often to screen, and when to stop screening should be based on shared decision making involving the woman and her clinician.

Recommendation 2: Breastfeeding services and supplies

Women should be provided “comprehensive lactation support services including counseling, education and breast feeding equipment and supplies during the antenatal, perinatal, and postpartum periods.” These services will support the successful initiation and maintenance of breastfeeding. Women should have access to double electric breast pumps.

Recommendation 3: Screening for cervical cancer

Average-risk women should initiate cervical cancer screening with cervical cytology at age 21 years and have cervical cytology testing every 3 years from 21 to 29 years of age. “Cotesting with cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is not recommended for women younger than 30 years. Women aged 30 to 65 years should be screened with cytology and HPV testing every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years.” Women who have received the HPV vaccine should be screened using these guidelines. Cervical cancer screening is not recommended for women younger than 21 years or older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. Cervical cancer screening is also not recommended for women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and no personal history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 within the past 20 years.

Recommendation 4: Contraception

Adolescent and adult women should have access to the full range of US Food and Drug Administration–approved female-controlled contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancy and improve birth outcomes. Multiple visits with a clinician may be needed to select an optimal contraceptive.

Recommendation 5: Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus

Pregnant women should be screened for GDM between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to prevent adverse birth outcomes. Screening should be performed with a “50 gm oral glucose challenge test followed by a 3-hour 100 gm oral glucose tolerance test” if the results on the initial oral glucose tolerance test are abnormal. This testing sequence has high sensitivity and specificity. Women with risk factors for diabetes mellitus should be screened for diabetes at the first prenatal visit using current best clinical practice.

Recommendation 6: Screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection

Adolescents and women should receive education and risk assessment for HIV annually and should be tested for HIV at least once during their lifetime. Based on assessed risk, screening annually may be appropriate. “Screening for HIV is recommended for all pregnant women upon initiation of prenatal care with retesting during pregnancy based on risk factors. Rapid HIV testing is recommended for pregnant women who present in active labor with an undocumented HIV status.” Risk-based screening does not identify approximately 20% of HIV-infected people. Hence screening annually may be reasonable.

Recommendation 7: Screening for interpersonal and domestic violence

All adolescents and women should be screened annually for both interpersonal violence (IPV) and domestic violence (DV). Intervention services should be available to all adolescents and women. IPV and DV are prevalent problems, and they are often undetected by clinicians. Hence annual screening is recommended.

Recommendation 8: Counseling for sexually transmitted infections

Adolescents and women should be assessed for sexually transmittedinfection (STI) risk. Risk factors include:

• “age younger than 25 years,
• a recent STI,
• a new sex partner,
• multiple partners,
• a partner with concurrent partners,
• a partner with an STI, and
• a lack of or inconsistent condom use.”

Women at increased risk for an STI should receive behavioral counseling.

Recommendation 9: Well-woman preventive visits

Women should “receive at least one preventive care visit per year beginning in adolescence and continuing across the lifespan to ensure that the recommended preventive services including preconception and many services necessary for prenatal and interconception care are obtained. The primary purpose of these visits is the delivery and coordination of recommended preventive services as determined by age and risk factors.”

I plan on using these recommendations to guide my practice

Historically, many high-profile expert professional groups have developed their own women’s health services guidelines. The proliferation of conflicting guidelines confused both patients and clinicians. Dueling guidelines likely undermine public health because they result in confusion among patients and inconsistent care across the many disciplines that provide medical services to women.

The proliferation of conflicting guidelines for mammography screening for breast cancer is a good example of how dueling guidelines can undermine public health (TABLE).⁴⁻⁷ The WPSI has done a great service to women and clinicians by creating a shared framework for consistently providing critical services across a woman’s entire life. I plan on using these recommendations to guide my practice. Patients and clinicians will greatly benefit from the exceptionally thoughtful women’s preventive services guidelines provided by the WPSI.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) intended that women have access to critical preventive health services without a copay or deductible. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) was asked to help identify those critical preventive women’s health services. In 2011, the IOM Committee on Preventive Services for Women recommended that all women have access to 9 preventive services, among them¹:

• screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)
• human papilloma virus testing
• contraceptive methods and counseling
• well-woman visits.

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services agreed to update the recommended preventive services every 5 years.

In March 2016, HRSA entered into a 5-year cooperative agreement with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to update the guidelines and to develop additional recommendations to enhance women’s health.² ACOG launched the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) to develop the 2016 update.

The 5-year grant with HRSA will address many more preventive health services for women across their lifespan as well as implementation strategies so that women receive consistent and appropriate care, regardless of the health care provider’s specialty. The WPSI recognizes that the selection of a provider for well-woman care will be determined as much by a woman’s needs and preferences as by her access to health care services and health plan availability.

The WPSI draft recommendations were released for public comment in September 2016,² and HRSA approved the recommendations in December 2016.³ In this editorial, I provide a look at which organizations comprise the WPSI and a summary of the 9 recommended preventive health services.

Who makes up the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative?

The WPSI is a collaboration between professional societies and consumer organizations. The goal of the WPSI is “to promote health over the course of a woman’s lifetime through disease prevention and preventive healthcare.” The WPSI advisory panel provides oversight to the effort and the multidisciplinary steering committee develops the recommendations. The WPSI advisory panel includes leaders and experts from 4 major professional organizations, whose members provide the majority of women’s health care in the United States:

• ACOG
• American College of Physicians (ACP)
• American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)
• National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health (NPWH).

The multidisciplinary steering committee includes the members of the advisory panel, representatives from 17 professional and consumer organizations, a patient representative, and representatives from 6 federal agencies. The WPSI is currently chaired by Jeanne Conry, MD, PhD, past president of ACOG. The steering committee used evidence-based best practices to develop the guidelines and relied heavily on the foundation provided by the 2011 IOM report.¹

The 9 WPSI recommendations

Much of the text below is directly quoted from the final recommendations. When a recommendation is paraphrased it is not placed in quotations.

Recommendation 1: Breast cancer screening for average-risk women

“Average-risk women should initiate mammography screening for breast cancer no earlier than age 40 and no later than age 50 years. Screeningmammography should occur at least biennially and as frequently as annually. Screening should continue through at least age 74 years and age alone should not be the basis to stop screening.”

Decisions about when to initiate screening for women between 40 and 50 years of age, how often to screen, and when to stop screening should be based on shared decision making involving the woman and her clinician.

Recommendation 2: Breastfeeding services and supplies

Women should be provided “comprehensive lactation support services including counseling, education and breast feeding equipment and supplies during the antenatal, perinatal, and postpartum periods.” These services will support the successful initiation and maintenance of breastfeeding. Women should have access to double electric breast pumps.

Recommendation 3: Screening for cervical cancer

Average-risk women should initiate cervical cancer screening with cervical cytology at age 21 years and have cervical cytology testing every 3 years from 21 to 29 years of age. “Cotesting with cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is not recommended for women younger than 30 years. Women aged 30 to 65 years should be screened with cytology and HPV testing every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years.” Women who have received the HPV vaccine should be screened using these guidelines. Cervical cancer screening is not recommended for women younger than 21 years or older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. Cervical cancer screening is also not recommended for women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and no personal history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 within the past 20 years.

Recommendation 4: Contraception

Adolescent and adult women should have access to the full range of US Food and Drug Administration–approved female-controlled contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancy and improve birth outcomes. Multiple visits with a clinician may be needed to select an optimal contraceptive.

Recommendation 5: Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus

Pregnant women should be screened for GDM between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to prevent adverse birth outcomes. Screening should be performed with a “50 gm oral glucose challenge test followed by a 3-hour 100 gm oral glucose tolerance test” if the results on the initial oral glucose tolerance test are abnormal. This testing sequence has high sensitivity and specificity. Women with risk factors for diabetes mellitus should be screened for diabetes at the first prenatal visit using current best clinical practice.

Recommendation 6: Screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection

Adolescents and women should receive education and risk assessment for HIV annually and should be tested for HIV at least once during their lifetime. Based on assessed risk, screening annually may be appropriate. “Screening for HIV is recommended for all pregnant women upon initiation of prenatal care with retesting during pregnancy based on risk factors. Rapid HIV testing is recommended for pregnant women who present in active labor with an undocumented HIV status.” Risk-based screening does not identify approximately 20% of HIV-infected people. Hence screening annually may be reasonable.

Recommendation 7: Screening for interpersonal and domestic violence

All adolescents and women should be screened annually for both interpersonal violence (IPV) and domestic violence (DV). Intervention services should be available to all adolescents and women. IPV and DV are prevalent problems, and they are often undetected by clinicians. Hence annual screening is recommended.

Recommendation 8: Counseling for sexually transmitted infections

Adolescents and women should be assessed for sexually transmittedinfection (STI) risk. Risk factors include:

• “age younger than 25 years,
• a recent STI,
• a new sex partner,
• multiple partners,
• a partner with concurrent partners,
• a partner with an STI, and
• a lack of or inconsistent condom use.”

Women at increased risk for an STI should receive behavioral counseling.

Recommendation 9: Well-woman preventive visits

Women should “receive at least one preventive care visit per year beginning in adolescence and continuing across the lifespan to ensure that the recommended preventive services including preconception and many services necessary for prenatal and interconception care are obtained. The primary purpose of these visits is the delivery and coordination of recommended preventive services as determined by age and risk factors.”

I plan on using these recommendations to guide my practice

Historically, many high-profile expert professional groups have developed their own women’s health services guidelines. The proliferation of conflicting guidelines confused both patients and clinicians. Dueling guidelines likely undermine public health because they result in confusion among patients and inconsistent care across the many disciplines that provide medical services to women.

The proliferation of conflicting guidelines for mammography screening for breast cancer is a good example of how dueling guidelines can undermine public health (TABLE).⁴⁻⁷ The WPSI has done a great service to women and clinicians by creating a shared framework for consistently providing critical services across a woman’s entire life. I plan on using these recommendations to guide my practice. Patients and clinicians will greatly benefit from the exceptionally thoughtful women’s preventive services guidelines provided by the WPSI.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) intended that women have access to critical preventive health services without a copay or deductible. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) was asked to help identify those critical preventive women’s health services. In 2011, the IOM Committee on Preventive Services for Women recommended that all women have access to 9 preventive services, among them¹:

• screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)
• human papilloma virus testing
• contraceptive methods and counseling
• well-woman visits.

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services agreed to update the recommended preventive services every 5 years.

In March 2016, HRSA entered into a 5-year cooperative agreement with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to update the guidelines and to develop additional recommendations to enhance women’s health.² ACOG launched the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) to develop the 2016 update.

The 5-year grant with HRSA will address many more preventive health services for women across their lifespan as well as implementation strategies so that women receive consistent and appropriate care, regardless of the health care provider’s specialty. The WPSI recognizes that the selection of a provider for well-woman care will be determined as much by a woman’s needs and preferences as by her access to health care services and health plan availability.

The WPSI draft recommendations were released for public comment in September 2016,² and HRSA approved the recommendations in December 2016.³ In this editorial, I provide a look at which organizations comprise the WPSI and a summary of the 9 recommended preventive health services.

Who makes up the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative?

The WPSI is a collaboration between professional societies and consumer organizations. The goal of the WPSI is “to promote health over the course of a woman’s lifetime through disease prevention and preventive healthcare.” The WPSI advisory panel provides oversight to the effort and the multidisciplinary steering committee develops the recommendations. The WPSI advisory panel includes leaders and experts from 4 major professional organizations, whose members provide the majority of women’s health care in the United States:

• ACOG
• American College of Physicians (ACP)
• American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)
• National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health (NPWH).

The multidisciplinary steering committee includes the members of the advisory panel, representatives from 17 professional and consumer organizations, a patient representative, and representatives from 6 federal agencies. The WPSI is currently chaired by Jeanne Conry, MD, PhD, past president of ACOG. The steering committee used evidence-based best practices to develop the guidelines and relied heavily on the foundation provided by the 2011 IOM report.¹

The 9 WPSI recommendations

Much of the text below is directly quoted from the final recommendations. When a recommendation is paraphrased it is not placed in quotations.

Recommendation 1: Breast cancer screening for average-risk women

“Average-risk women should initiate mammography screening for breast cancer no earlier than age 40 and no later than age 50 years. Screeningmammography should occur at least biennially and as frequently as annually. Screening should continue through at least age 74 years and age alone should not be the basis to stop screening.”

Decisions about when to initiate screening for women between 40 and 50 years of age, how often to screen, and when to stop screening should be based on shared decision making involving the woman and her clinician.

Recommendation 2: Breastfeeding services and supplies

Women should be provided “comprehensive lactation support services including counseling, education and breast feeding equipment and supplies during the antenatal, perinatal, and postpartum periods.” These services will support the successful initiation and maintenance of breastfeeding. Women should have access to double electric breast pumps.

Recommendation 3: Screening for cervical cancer

Average-risk women should initiate cervical cancer screening with cervical cytology at age 21 years and have cervical cytology testing every 3 years from 21 to 29 years of age. “Cotesting with cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is not recommended for women younger than 30 years. Women aged 30 to 65 years should be screened with cytology and HPV testing every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years.” Women who have received the HPV vaccine should be screened using these guidelines. Cervical cancer screening is not recommended for women younger than 21 years or older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. Cervical cancer screening is also not recommended for women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and no personal history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 within the past 20 years.

Recommendation 4: Contraception

Adolescent and adult women should have access to the full range of US Food and Drug Administration–approved female-controlled contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancy and improve birth outcomes. Multiple visits with a clinician may be needed to select an optimal contraceptive.

Recommendation 5: Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus

Pregnant women should be screened for GDM between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to prevent adverse birth outcomes. Screening should be performed with a “50 gm oral glucose challenge test followed by a 3-hour 100 gm oral glucose tolerance test” if the results on the initial oral glucose tolerance test are abnormal. This testing sequence has high sensitivity and specificity. Women with risk factors for diabetes mellitus should be screened for diabetes at the first prenatal visit using current best clinical practice.

Recommendation 6: Screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection

Adolescents and women should receive education and risk assessment for HIV annually and should be tested for HIV at least once during their lifetime. Based on assessed risk, screening annually may be appropriate. “Screening for HIV is recommended for all pregnant women upon initiation of prenatal care with retesting during pregnancy based on risk factors. Rapid HIV testing is recommended for pregnant women who present in active labor with an undocumented HIV status.” Risk-based screening does not identify approximately 20% of HIV-infected people. Hence screening annually may be reasonable.

Recommendation 7: Screening for interpersonal and domestic violence

All adolescents and women should be screened annually for both interpersonal violence (IPV) and domestic violence (DV). Intervention services should be available to all adolescents and women. IPV and DV are prevalent problems, and they are often undetected by clinicians. Hence annual screening is recommended.

Recommendation 8: Counseling for sexually transmitted infections

Adolescents and women should be assessed for sexually transmittedinfection (STI) risk. Risk factors include:

• “age younger than 25 years,
• a recent STI,
• a new sex partner,
• multiple partners,
• a partner with concurrent partners,
• a partner with an STI, and
• a lack of or inconsistent condom use.”

Women at increased risk for an STI should receive behavioral counseling.

Recommendation 9: Well-woman preventive visits

Women should “receive at least one preventive care visit per year beginning in adolescence and continuing across the lifespan to ensure that the recommended preventive services including preconception and many services necessary for prenatal and interconception care are obtained. The primary purpose of these visits is the delivery and coordination of recommended preventive services as determined by age and risk factors.”

I plan on using these recommendations to guide my practice

Historically, many high-profile expert professional groups have developed their own women’s health services guidelines. The proliferation of conflicting guidelines confused both patients and clinicians. Dueling guidelines likely undermine public health because they result in confusion among patients and inconsistent care across the many disciplines that provide medical services to women.

The proliferation of conflicting guidelines for mammography screening for breast cancer is a good example of how dueling guidelines can undermine public health (TABLE).⁴⁻⁷ The WPSI has done a great service to women and clinicians by creating a shared framework for consistently providing critical services across a woman’s entire life. I plan on using these recommendations to guide my practice. Patients and clinicians will greatly benefit from the exceptionally thoughtful women’s preventive services guidelines provided by the WPSI.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“YOUR PATIENTS ARE TALKING: ISN’T IT TIME YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ONLINE REPUTATION?”

RON ROMANO AND NEIL H. BAUM, MD (NOVEMBER 2016)

Eschews meaningless Internet obfuscation

As a practicing physician I don’t have time for social media and its accompanying advertising rationale; it’s a wasteland that replaces television. My patients and I go one-on-one, eye-to-eye, and eschew meaningless Internet obfuscation. Don’t we have better things to do with our physician/patient relationship than check online reviews?

Warren Kendall, MD
Grants Pass, Oregon

Share your thoughts!  Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“YOUR PATIENTS ARE TALKING: ISN’T IT TIME YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ONLINE REPUTATION?”

RON ROMANO AND NEIL H. BAUM, MD (NOVEMBER 2016)

Eschews meaningless Internet obfuscation

As a practicing physician I don’t have time for social media and its accompanying advertising rationale; it’s a wasteland that replaces television. My patients and I go one-on-one, eye-to-eye, and eschew meaningless Internet obfuscation. Don’t we have better things to do with our physician/patient relationship than check online reviews?

Warren Kendall, MD
Grants Pass, Oregon

Share your thoughts!  Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“YOUR PATIENTS ARE TALKING: ISN’T IT TIME YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ONLINE REPUTATION?”

RON ROMANO AND NEIL H. BAUM, MD (NOVEMBER 2016)

Eschews meaningless Internet obfuscation

As a practicing physician I don’t have time for social media and its accompanying advertising rationale; it’s a wasteland that replaces television. My patients and I go one-on-one, eye-to-eye, and eschew meaningless Internet obfuscation. Don’t we have better things to do with our physician/patient relationship than check online reviews?

Warren Kendall, MD
Grants Pass, Oregon

Share your thoughts!  Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“PREVENTING INFECTION AFTER CESAREAN DELIVERY: 5 MORE EVIDENCE-BASED MEASURES TO CONSIDER”

KATHRYN E. PATRICK, MD; SARA L. DEATSMAN, MD; AND PATRICK DUFF, MD (DECEMEBER 2016)

Should we change instruments and gloves after closing the uterus?

In reference to the recent article series on preventing infection after cesarean delivery by Drs. Patrick, Deatsman, and Duff, what are the thoughts on using clean instruments and changing gloves after closing the uterus?

Gerrit J. Schipper, MD
Frederick, Maryland

❯❯ Drs. Patrick, Deatsman, and Duff respond:

We appreciate Dr. Schipper’s thoughtful question concerning our recent articles. At present, we are not aware of any rigorous studies that have evaluated the possible protective effect of changing to a different set of surgical instruments after closure of the uterus.

The second part of the question concerning the effect of changing gloves at a certain point in the operation is more intriguing. In an earlier report from our institution, we showed that the dominant hand of the operator becomes heavily contaminated with bacteria during the process of extracting the fetal head from the lower uterine segment.¹ The contamination is particularly heavy when the patient has had an extended duration of labor in the presence of ruptured membranes. In a subsequent investigation, we showed that avoidance of manual extraction of the placenta, a process in which the now-contaminated glove of the operator is placed between the placenta and the uterine wall, significantly reduced the frequency of postcesarean endometritis even in patients who already were receiving systemic antibiotic prophylaxis.² Whether changing gloves after delivery of the baby will further decrease the frequency of postcesarean endometritis, beyond that which can be achieved with systemic antibiotic prophylaxis combined with delivery of the placenta by traction on the cord, has not been studied in a systematic manner.

Given the low frequency of infection that can be achieved with these 2 methods, it would require a very large sample size to show that glove change offered an additional protective effect. Nevertheless, on a practical basis, we think it is very reasonable to change the glove on the dominant hand following a difficult extraction of the presenting part in a patient who has had an extended duration of labor and ruptured membranes. The glove change is particularly important if manual extraction of the placenta is contemplated.

Of note, we would like to acknowledge that the US Food and Drug Administration finalized a ban on the use of powdered surgical gloves effective January 18, 2017.³ The aerosolized glove powder on latex gloves contains proteins that can provoke severe respiratory allergic reactions in patients who are sensitive to latex. Even powdered synthetic gloves can cause airway inflammation, wound inflammation, and postoperative adhesions.

“DOES ONE PARTICULAR CESAREAN TECHNIQUE CONFER BETTER MATERNAL AND NEONATAL OUTCOMES?”

JOHN M. THORP JR, MD (EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE; NOVEMBER 2016)

Choosing a cesarean technique based on “evidence”

I appreciate the commentary by Dr. Thorp concerning cesarean delivery techniques. I have always thought that there was no difference in the outcomes of the various techniques. However, we will continue to waver to the peer pressure of this evidence-based stuff—until we find out later, like now—until things change again. “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Dr. Smart Ebinne
Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Share your thoughts!  Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“PREVENTING INFECTION AFTER CESAREAN DELIVERY: 5 MORE EVIDENCE-BASED MEASURES TO CONSIDER”

KATHRYN E. PATRICK, MD; SARA L. DEATSMAN, MD; AND PATRICK DUFF, MD (DECEMEBER 2016)

Should we change instruments and gloves after closing the uterus?

In reference to the recent article series on preventing infection after cesarean delivery by Drs. Patrick, Deatsman, and Duff, what are the thoughts on using clean instruments and changing gloves after closing the uterus?

Gerrit J. Schipper, MD
Frederick, Maryland

❯❯ Drs. Patrick, Deatsman, and Duff respond:

We appreciate Dr. Schipper’s thoughtful question concerning our recent articles. At present, we are not aware of any rigorous studies that have evaluated the possible protective effect of changing to a different set of surgical instruments after closure of the uterus.

The second part of the question concerning the effect of changing gloves at a certain point in the operation is more intriguing. In an earlier report from our institution, we showed that the dominant hand of the operator becomes heavily contaminated with bacteria during the process of extracting the fetal head from the lower uterine segment.¹ The contamination is particularly heavy when the patient has had an extended duration of labor in the presence of ruptured membranes. In a subsequent investigation, we showed that avoidance of manual extraction of the placenta, a process in which the now-contaminated glove of the operator is placed between the placenta and the uterine wall, significantly reduced the frequency of postcesarean endometritis even in patients who already were receiving systemic antibiotic prophylaxis.² Whether changing gloves after delivery of the baby will further decrease the frequency of postcesarean endometritis, beyond that which can be achieved with systemic antibiotic prophylaxis combined with delivery of the placenta by traction on the cord, has not been studied in a systematic manner.

Given the low frequency of infection that can be achieved with these 2 methods, it would require a very large sample size to show that glove change offered an additional protective effect. Nevertheless, on a practical basis, we think it is very reasonable to change the glove on the dominant hand following a difficult extraction of the presenting part in a patient who has had an extended duration of labor and ruptured membranes. The glove change is particularly important if manual extraction of the placenta is contemplated.

Of note, we would like to acknowledge that the US Food and Drug Administration finalized a ban on the use of powdered surgical gloves effective January 18, 2017.³ The aerosolized glove powder on latex gloves contains proteins that can provoke severe respiratory allergic reactions in patients who are sensitive to latex. Even powdered synthetic gloves can cause airway inflammation, wound inflammation, and postoperative adhesions.

“DOES ONE PARTICULAR CESAREAN TECHNIQUE CONFER BETTER MATERNAL AND NEONATAL OUTCOMES?”

JOHN M. THORP JR, MD (EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE; NOVEMBER 2016)

Choosing a cesarean technique based on “evidence”

I appreciate the commentary by Dr. Thorp concerning cesarean delivery techniques. I have always thought that there was no difference in the outcomes of the various techniques. However, we will continue to waver to the peer pressure of this evidence-based stuff—until we find out later, like now—until things change again. “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Dr. Smart Ebinne
Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Share your thoughts!  Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“PREVENTING INFECTION AFTER CESAREAN DELIVERY: 5 MORE EVIDENCE-BASED MEASURES TO CONSIDER”

KATHRYN E. PATRICK, MD; SARA L. DEATSMAN, MD; AND PATRICK DUFF, MD (DECEMEBER 2016)

Should we change instruments and gloves after closing the uterus?

In reference to the recent article series on preventing infection after cesarean delivery by Drs. Patrick, Deatsman, and Duff, what are the thoughts on using clean instruments and changing gloves after closing the uterus?

Gerrit J. Schipper, MD
Frederick, Maryland

❯❯ Drs. Patrick, Deatsman, and Duff respond:

We appreciate Dr. Schipper’s thoughtful question concerning our recent articles. At present, we are not aware of any rigorous studies that have evaluated the possible protective effect of changing to a different set of surgical instruments after closure of the uterus.

The second part of the question concerning the effect of changing gloves at a certain point in the operation is more intriguing. In an earlier report from our institution, we showed that the dominant hand of the operator becomes heavily contaminated with bacteria during the process of extracting the fetal head from the lower uterine segment.¹ The contamination is particularly heavy when the patient has had an extended duration of labor in the presence of ruptured membranes. In a subsequent investigation, we showed that avoidance of manual extraction of the placenta, a process in which the now-contaminated glove of the operator is placed between the placenta and the uterine wall, significantly reduced the frequency of postcesarean endometritis even in patients who already were receiving systemic antibiotic prophylaxis.² Whether changing gloves after delivery of the baby will further decrease the frequency of postcesarean endometritis, beyond that which can be achieved with systemic antibiotic prophylaxis combined with delivery of the placenta by traction on the cord, has not been studied in a systematic manner.

Given the low frequency of infection that can be achieved with these 2 methods, it would require a very large sample size to show that glove change offered an additional protective effect. Nevertheless, on a practical basis, we think it is very reasonable to change the glove on the dominant hand following a difficult extraction of the presenting part in a patient who has had an extended duration of labor and ruptured membranes. The glove change is particularly important if manual extraction of the placenta is contemplated.

Of note, we would like to acknowledge that the US Food and Drug Administration finalized a ban on the use of powdered surgical gloves effective January 18, 2017.³ The aerosolized glove powder on latex gloves contains proteins that can provoke severe respiratory allergic reactions in patients who are sensitive to latex. Even powdered synthetic gloves can cause airway inflammation, wound inflammation, and postoperative adhesions.

“DOES ONE PARTICULAR CESAREAN TECHNIQUE CONFER BETTER MATERNAL AND NEONATAL OUTCOMES?”

JOHN M. THORP JR, MD (EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE; NOVEMBER 2016)

Choosing a cesarean technique based on “evidence”

I appreciate the commentary by Dr. Thorp concerning cesarean delivery techniques. I have always thought that there was no difference in the outcomes of the various techniques. However, we will continue to waver to the peer pressure of this evidence-based stuff—until we find out later, like now—until things change again. “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Dr. Smart Ebinne
Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Share your thoughts!  Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Disrupted placenta: Infant anemia

An Obgyn recommended an elective transverse low incision cesarean delivery at a prenatal visit. Due to severe weather, the ObGyn was unable to come to the hospital; an on-call ObGyn consulted with the ObGyn by phone. Cesarean delivery resulted in disruption of the placenta. When the infant’s blood gasses test results were abnormal, he was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit, where anemia was diagnosed. The infant was hospitalized for 31 days.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The on-call ObGyn caused the child’s injury by performing a transverse low incision. A testifying radiology expert said that ultrasonography (US) taken 5 weeks before delivery showed an anterior low-lying placenta but a clear field existed that would have allowed a vertical incision without placental disruption.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE:

The delivery was within the standard of care. The ObGyn did not have access to the US cited by the testifying radiologist; standard of care did not require that she have access to them. A transverse incision minimizes blood loss; a vertical incision would have disrupted a larger area of placenta. The infant had normal blood gasses at delivery; any injury was not related to placental disruption.

VERDICT:

A Virginia defense verdict was returned.

Child has spastic CP after long labor

A 17-year-old woman's baby was delivered using vacuum extraction after a prolonged labor. Two days after birth, US results revealed diffuse brain edema in the baby. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated an absence of brain parenchyma in the left and right hemispheres. The baby received a diagnosis of spastic cerebral palsy (CP). She has little voluntary movement and requires a feeding tube, a portable aspiration device, and in-home attendant care.

PARENT’S CLAIM:

The baby underwent a hypoxic ischemic event during labor. Four hospital physicians failed to deliver the child early when repetitive decelerations and strong contractions with an insufficient resting period were detected in the second stage of labor. This denied oxygen to the infant, resulting in profound brain damage. The infant’s injury occurred shortly before delivery.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The fetus did not have a fetal heart rate pattern that would have required an earlier delivery. The injury sustained by the baby was not compatible with a prolonged hypoxic event and was more likely caused by a genetic defect. The infant suffered a subacute brain injury at least 1 week before delivery.

VERDICT:

The hospital settled for $1.25 million. A California defense verdict was returned for the physicians.

Misdiagnosed ectopic pregnancy

After a home pregnancy test was positive, a 27-year-old woman reported vaginal spotting and cramping to her ObGyn. When no uterine contents showed on US, the ObGyn suspected an ectopic pregnancy and recommended termination of pregnancy. The woman requested another US; an appointment was scheduled for the next day. Instead of waiting, the woman went to an emergency department (ED) that night. Bloodwork confirmed the pregnancy but US results showed no evidence of an intrauterine pregnancy. The ED physician diagnosed an ectopic pregnancy. The on-call ObGyn concurred and recommended termination of pregnancy by surgical intervention or methotrexate. The patient chose methotrexate, which was administered, and she was discharged.

In the on-call ObGyn’s office a week later, the patient’s beta-hGC levels had not decreased. US revealed 2 intrauterine pregnancies, one with a heartbeat. The on-call ObGyn immediately referred the patient to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. New US results showed evidence of an abnormal intrauterine pregnancy and a second gestational sac with no embryo. Two days later US showed a twin pregnancy: a 6-week fetal pole with no heartbeat and the other with no fetal pole or yolk sac. A dilation and curettage was performed.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The on-call ObGyn misdiagnosed an ectopic pregnancy, failed to order additional testing, and failed to observe the patient for 48 to 72 hours before administering methotrexate. This led to the loss of twins.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

An ectopic pregnancy is an emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. There were sufficient signs for the on-call ObGyn to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy. She would have violated the standard of care if she had not administered treatment.

VERDICT:

The hospital settled for $127,000 before trial. An Illinois defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Disrupted placenta: Infant anemia

An Obgyn recommended an elective transverse low incision cesarean delivery at a prenatal visit. Due to severe weather, the ObGyn was unable to come to the hospital; an on-call ObGyn consulted with the ObGyn by phone. Cesarean delivery resulted in disruption of the placenta. When the infant’s blood gasses test results were abnormal, he was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit, where anemia was diagnosed. The infant was hospitalized for 31 days.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The on-call ObGyn caused the child’s injury by performing a transverse low incision. A testifying radiology expert said that ultrasonography (US) taken 5 weeks before delivery showed an anterior low-lying placenta but a clear field existed that would have allowed a vertical incision without placental disruption.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE:

The delivery was within the standard of care. The ObGyn did not have access to the US cited by the testifying radiologist; standard of care did not require that she have access to them. A transverse incision minimizes blood loss; a vertical incision would have disrupted a larger area of placenta. The infant had normal blood gasses at delivery; any injury was not related to placental disruption.

VERDICT:

A Virginia defense verdict was returned.

Child has spastic CP after long labor

A 17-year-old woman's baby was delivered using vacuum extraction after a prolonged labor. Two days after birth, US results revealed diffuse brain edema in the baby. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated an absence of brain parenchyma in the left and right hemispheres. The baby received a diagnosis of spastic cerebral palsy (CP). She has little voluntary movement and requires a feeding tube, a portable aspiration device, and in-home attendant care.

PARENT’S CLAIM:

The baby underwent a hypoxic ischemic event during labor. Four hospital physicians failed to deliver the child early when repetitive decelerations and strong contractions with an insufficient resting period were detected in the second stage of labor. This denied oxygen to the infant, resulting in profound brain damage. The infant’s injury occurred shortly before delivery.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The fetus did not have a fetal heart rate pattern that would have required an earlier delivery. The injury sustained by the baby was not compatible with a prolonged hypoxic event and was more likely caused by a genetic defect. The infant suffered a subacute brain injury at least 1 week before delivery.

VERDICT:

The hospital settled for $1.25 million. A California defense verdict was returned for the physicians.

Misdiagnosed ectopic pregnancy

After a home pregnancy test was positive, a 27-year-old woman reported vaginal spotting and cramping to her ObGyn. When no uterine contents showed on US, the ObGyn suspected an ectopic pregnancy and recommended termination of pregnancy. The woman requested another US; an appointment was scheduled for the next day. Instead of waiting, the woman went to an emergency department (ED) that night. Bloodwork confirmed the pregnancy but US results showed no evidence of an intrauterine pregnancy. The ED physician diagnosed an ectopic pregnancy. The on-call ObGyn concurred and recommended termination of pregnancy by surgical intervention or methotrexate. The patient chose methotrexate, which was administered, and she was discharged.

In the on-call ObGyn’s office a week later, the patient’s beta-hGC levels had not decreased. US revealed 2 intrauterine pregnancies, one with a heartbeat. The on-call ObGyn immediately referred the patient to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. New US results showed evidence of an abnormal intrauterine pregnancy and a second gestational sac with no embryo. Two days later US showed a twin pregnancy: a 6-week fetal pole with no heartbeat and the other with no fetal pole or yolk sac. A dilation and curettage was performed.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The on-call ObGyn misdiagnosed an ectopic pregnancy, failed to order additional testing, and failed to observe the patient for 48 to 72 hours before administering methotrexate. This led to the loss of twins.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

An ectopic pregnancy is an emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. There were sufficient signs for the on-call ObGyn to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy. She would have violated the standard of care if she had not administered treatment.

VERDICT:

The hospital settled for $127,000 before trial. An Illinois defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Disrupted placenta: Infant anemia

An Obgyn recommended an elective transverse low incision cesarean delivery at a prenatal visit. Due to severe weather, the ObGyn was unable to come to the hospital; an on-call ObGyn consulted with the ObGyn by phone. Cesarean delivery resulted in disruption of the placenta. When the infant’s blood gasses test results were abnormal, he was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit, where anemia was diagnosed. The infant was hospitalized for 31 days.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The on-call ObGyn caused the child’s injury by performing a transverse low incision. A testifying radiology expert said that ultrasonography (US) taken 5 weeks before delivery showed an anterior low-lying placenta but a clear field existed that would have allowed a vertical incision without placental disruption.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE:

The delivery was within the standard of care. The ObGyn did not have access to the US cited by the testifying radiologist; standard of care did not require that she have access to them. A transverse incision minimizes blood loss; a vertical incision would have disrupted a larger area of placenta. The infant had normal blood gasses at delivery; any injury was not related to placental disruption.

VERDICT:

A Virginia defense verdict was returned.

Child has spastic CP after long labor

A 17-year-old woman's baby was delivered using vacuum extraction after a prolonged labor. Two days after birth, US results revealed diffuse brain edema in the baby. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated an absence of brain parenchyma in the left and right hemispheres. The baby received a diagnosis of spastic cerebral palsy (CP). She has little voluntary movement and requires a feeding tube, a portable aspiration device, and in-home attendant care.

PARENT’S CLAIM:

The baby underwent a hypoxic ischemic event during labor. Four hospital physicians failed to deliver the child early when repetitive decelerations and strong contractions with an insufficient resting period were detected in the second stage of labor. This denied oxygen to the infant, resulting in profound brain damage. The infant’s injury occurred shortly before delivery.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The fetus did not have a fetal heart rate pattern that would have required an earlier delivery. The injury sustained by the baby was not compatible with a prolonged hypoxic event and was more likely caused by a genetic defect. The infant suffered a subacute brain injury at least 1 week before delivery.

VERDICT:

The hospital settled for $1.25 million. A California defense verdict was returned for the physicians.

Misdiagnosed ectopic pregnancy

After a home pregnancy test was positive, a 27-year-old woman reported vaginal spotting and cramping to her ObGyn. When no uterine contents showed on US, the ObGyn suspected an ectopic pregnancy and recommended termination of pregnancy. The woman requested another US; an appointment was scheduled for the next day. Instead of waiting, the woman went to an emergency department (ED) that night. Bloodwork confirmed the pregnancy but US results showed no evidence of an intrauterine pregnancy. The ED physician diagnosed an ectopic pregnancy. The on-call ObGyn concurred and recommended termination of pregnancy by surgical intervention or methotrexate. The patient chose methotrexate, which was administered, and she was discharged.

In the on-call ObGyn’s office a week later, the patient’s beta-hGC levels had not decreased. US revealed 2 intrauterine pregnancies, one with a heartbeat. The on-call ObGyn immediately referred the patient to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. New US results showed evidence of an abnormal intrauterine pregnancy and a second gestational sac with no embryo. Two days later US showed a twin pregnancy: a 6-week fetal pole with no heartbeat and the other with no fetal pole or yolk sac. A dilation and curettage was performed.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The on-call ObGyn misdiagnosed an ectopic pregnancy, failed to order additional testing, and failed to observe the patient for 48 to 72 hours before administering methotrexate. This led to the loss of twins.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

An ectopic pregnancy is an emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. There were sufficient signs for the on-call ObGyn to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy. She would have violated the standard of care if she had not administered treatment.

VERDICT:

The hospital settled for $127,000 before trial. An Illinois defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.