Digitized informed patient consent (D-IPC) prior to contrast-enhanced CT exams has significant advantages over traditional paper consent forms, but it also has the unfortunate effect of leaving some of the most vulnerable patients behind.
A new analysis that compares the use of structured, digitized consent to traditional paper forms given to patients before they undergo contrast-enhanced CT found that the digital method alerted clinicians to significantly more patient red flags (contrast allergies, thyroid dysfunction, etc.), enabling providers to offer more personalized treatment when necessary [1]. The findings were published recently in Insights into Imaging, and although the authors found digital consent methods beneficial, they acknowledged that the digital strategy did not come without pitfalls.
As for the benefits, compared to paper forms, D-IPC detected more red flags (385 versus 43). In 13.7% of cases, the red flags detected were considered critical for contrast injection, with thyroid disease being the most common. Patients using the tablets were observed to provide more detailed histories, and clinical workflows also benefited from D-IPC.
“We see in the clinical routine that improved data availability on each workstation, quick document retrieval, optimal readability, and pre-filled questionnaire item for recurrent examinations are major benefits for our patients and the hospital staff,” radiologist Markus Kopp, MD, of University Hospital Erlangen in Germany and co-authors wrote.
While digitizing the informed consent process was a feasible option for 84.4% of the 2,016 patients it was offered to, there was an obvious age difference between the patients who did and did not accept the tablet to complete their forms. Patients ranging in age from 57 to 74 opted for paper forms most often, suggesting that older patients were less willing to use digital methods and could be left confused and frustrated if paper forms were not an available option, the authors indicated.
The researchers also considered the environmental impact of using tablets for consent. They found that the use of 12 tablets saved 3,404 sheets of paper but still resulted in higher emissions—an estimated 80 to 90 times higher.
In terms of cost savings, digitized consent did not save the institutions money. In fact, it increased expenses by 8.7%. However, the authors implied that the benefits outweighed the initial increase in spending.
The authors suggested that future work should focus on IT services and hardware solutions to address the environmental and financial impact of implementing digital consent processes.
To learn more about the research, click here.
In addition to her background in journalism, Hannah also has patient-facing experience in clinical settings, having spent more than 12 years working as a registered rad tech. She joined Innovate Healthcare in 2021 and has since put her unique expertise to use in her editorial role with Health Imaging.