Digitized and structured informed patient consent before contrast-enhanced computed tomography: feasibility and benefits in clinical routine

Kopp M, Roth J, Geißler F, Daniel S, Rüttinger T, Treutlein C, Balbach E, Heiß R, Wetzl M, El Amrani N, Cavallaro AJ, Uder M, May M (2022)

Publication Type: Journal article

Publication year: 2022

Journal

Insights into Imaging Springer Verlag

Book Volume: 13

Article Number: 164

Journal Issue: 1

DOI: 10.1186/s13244-022-01304-6

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the feasibility and benefits of digitized informed patient consent (D-IPC) for contrast-enhanced CT and compare digitized documentation with paper-based, conventional patient records (C-PR). Methods: We offered D-IPC to 2016 patients scheduled for a CT. We assessed patient history (e.g., CT examinations, malignant or cardiovascular diseases) and contraindications (red flags) for a CT (e.g., thyroid hyperfunction, allergies) using a tablet device. We evaluated the success rate of D-IPC and compared patient age between the subgroups of patients who were able or unable to complete D-IPC. We analyzed the prevalence of marked questions and red flags (RF). RF were compared with the documentation from C-PR. We estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for paperless workflow and provide a cost–benefit analysis. Results: Overall, 84.4% of patients completed D-IPC. They were younger (median 61 years) than unsuccessful patients (65 years; p < 0.001). Patients who marked questions (21.7%) were older than patients without inquiries (median 63.9 vs 59.5 years; p < 0.001). The most prevalent RF was thyroid disease (23.8%). RF were considered critical for contrast-agent injection in 13.7%, requiring personalized preparation. The detection rate for RF documented with D-IPC was higher than for C-PR (n = 385 vs. 43). GHG emissions for tablet production are 80–90 times higher than for paper production. The estimated costs were slightly higher for D-IPC (+ 8.7%). Conclusion: D-IPC is feasible, but patient age is a relevant factor. Marked questions and RF help personalize IPC. The availability of patient history by D-IPC was superior compared to C-PR.

Authors with CRIS profile

Markus Kopp Institute of Radiology Jessica Roth Medizinische Fakultät Frederik Geißler Medizinische Fakultät Sascha Daniel Institute of Radiology Theresa Rüttinger Institute of Radiology Christoph Treutlein Institute of Radiology Eva Balbach Institute of Radiology Rafael Heiß Institute of Radiology Matthias Wetzl Institute of Radiology Alexander Josef Cavallaro Institute of Radiology Michael Uder Lehrstuhl für Diagnostische Radiologie Matthias May Institute of Radiology

How to cite

APA:

Kopp, M., Roth, J., Geißler, F., Daniel, S., Rüttinger, T., Treutlein, C.,... May, M. (2022). Digitized and structured informed patient consent before contrast-enhanced computed tomography: feasibility and benefits in clinical routine. Insights into Imaging, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01304-6

MLA:

Kopp, Markus, et al. "Digitized and structured informed patient consent before contrast-enhanced computed tomography: feasibility and benefits in clinical routine." Insights into Imaging 13.1 (2022).

BibTeX: Download