Surely if a copy of consent form is given to every patient before their procedure retrospective changes would be impossible?
-
-
-
I would agree. Although it won't protect all, it should protect most. Problem is, the only time CQC have ever checked & recorded data, they found the trust had retained the pt's copy in 85% of forms inspected. (Pause for effect) They've not recorded any further such data since.
-
We regularly audit whether a copy has been given to the patient. It is over 95% but not perfect.
-
That's very interesting to hear. Not just the result, but also the fact that you conduct an audit on the subject at all. What made you undertake an audit process in the first place?
-
We audit virtually everything we consider important and for CQC it is useful to demonstrate that we are at least trying to do things right even if not perfect and can show whether improving or not year on year
-
I find that very encouraging. Thanks doc. May I ask, when did you first include checking pt consent forms had been given out? And why?
-
About 5 years or more ago. I suspect because it is a requirement of good consent practice to give a copy.
-
Where do you take your lead from these days for what represents good consent practice? I'm just looking to find anything that specifies the need to hand a copy to patient, or auditing the same.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Sweet all.
-
I'm going to guess that's about the size of it, Shibs. I'm just looking around for any signs now. Think I've got more chance of finding evidence that the flu vaccine is safe and effective, tbh. :)
-
Yes. The consequences of it not being safe and effective are not worth thinking about.
-
Quite! Whichever of the two subjects we're talking about.https://twitter.com/c7rky/status/953008486673248256 …
-
I don't believe in conspiracies.
-
Not sure what you're thinking there, but you don't have to.. that's the Cochrane review I quoted from. So you don't believe that more than one person can conspire to achieve a common goal? Really?
#TrumanShow
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I wrote to him about how badly children are treated on CAMHS units. We now know 7 x more likely to be restrained than on adult wards
-
That's astonishing. What could possibly account for a seven-fold greater use of restraint against children, when compared to adults in mental health care? Someone needs to be taking a long, hard look in the mirror over those figures.
-
There is worse here and it is increasing. Under 20 and female and you will be at most risk. Prejudicehttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/09/women-black-patients-physically-restrained-mental-health …
-
I remember when a cry of 'women & children first' meant they could get on a lifeboat, prioritising their protection. Now it's a comment on restraint policy in mental healthcare. What the hell happened to our world?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Mike Richards is gone, David Behan is going, Neil Churchill says ‘not me’ and CQC inspections have to ‘look to find’ - have they been looking at the forms?
-
Well they didn't seem to be doing anything some 6 months after that letter which would help them gain executive understanding of the problem : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/risk_assessment_of_consent_forms?nocache=outgoing-443887#outgoing-443887 … I'm just looking for evidence of any change now.
-
Looks like GMC are finally getting round to reviewing their consent guidelines now, as CQC & NHSE requested. Only took them 3 years to respond. >https://twitter.com/c7rky/status/953033480883048448 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.