References

, 2nd edn. London: HMSO; 2009
London: HMSO; 2005
General Dental Council. 2013. http://www.gdc-uk.org
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. 1957;
Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital. 1984;
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority. 1997;
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. 2015;
Renton T, Hankins M, Sproate C, McGurk M. A randomised controlled clinical trial to compare the incidence of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve as a result of coronectomy and removal of mandibular third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 43:7-12
General Dental Council. 2014. http://www.gdc-uk.org
Godlee F. New rules of consent: the patient decides. Br Med J. 2015; 350

Informed consent: what's new?

From Volume 44, Issue 2, February 2017 | Pages 109-113

Authors

Claire Louise Bayliss

PgDip ClinPharm, MPharm

BDS Year 5 Student, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK (claire.bayliss@kcl.ac.uk)

Articles by Claire Louise Bayliss

Abstract

Informed consent has long been tried in the English courts using the Bolam test. This primarily tested the degree of professional negligence against the collective opinions of medical professionals. This principle is now considered outdated and the test of materiality now gives the individual patient shared decision-making during the consent process. Obtaining valid consent that will stand in a court of law and hold strong now involves a little more thought and time from the prudent dentist.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Obtaining valid consent is an extremely important risk minimizing application of time for a skilled health care professional (HCP). If undertaken skilfully it can lead to improved patient satisfaction, minimize patient complaints and ultimately lessen the risk of practising HCPs having a negligence case brought against them.

Article

Gone are the days where dentists relied on assumed, implied consent to carry out simple examinations to more complex and high risk procedures. Dental interventions were often carried out under the prescriptive work of a dentist, as he/she felt necessary, but always with the patients' best interests in mind. Patients were rarely given the menu of treatment options which we deliver today and seldom equipped with all the necessary information. The way the dental team plans, carries out and reviews treatment interventions has recently undergone a major shift, moving from being paternalistic in nature to a more ethically conscious, risk aware and patient-centred workforce.

Three basic factors need to be present and employed when obtaining valid consent under common law1 (Figure 1):

The latter point will be the main focus of this article.

Patient autonomy is an essential part of the current medical bioethical quaternary (Figure 2). Autonomy defines patients as individual people capable, in the most part, of making their own decisions regarding their healthcare choices, as long as they are well advised and informed.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available