Citations

BackgroundPrinciples of informed consent are ethically, morally, and legally grounded in physicians' responsibility to patients. This study examined patient expectations regarding the informed consent during the perioperative process, specifically risk information exchange, preferred method and timing of delivery, and the roles that patient anxiety and understanding might play.MethodsFive hundred patients seen in our pre‐operative clinic were surveyed by written questionnaire. Patients were asked about their level of agreement with a number of statements pertaining to informed consent and their preferences for discussion of types of risks. Anxiety concerns, impact of ability to understand complexities of care, preferences for timing, and method of presentation were assessed.ResultsFour hundred eleven of 500 surveys (82%) were completed. A majority of respondents (92% and 80%, respectively) believed the risk of common but less consequential complications and rare yet severe complications should be discussed. Only 21% agreed that anxiety generated by discussion of risks outweighed benefit and only 6% agreed that discussion of risks should be restricted based on patient inability to appreciate complexities of care. Discussion was preferred on the day of surgery, 1 week before, and 1 month before in 46%, 35%, and 16% of respondents, respectively, and independent of level of anxiety generated by such discussion (P = 0.87). Respondents preferred discussion with their anaesthesia provider alone (44%) or in combination with written information (52%) as compared with written information only (4%) (P < 0.01).ConclusionsGreater awareness of patient preferences and expectations may result in better information exchange between anaesthesia providers and their patients.

Background: It is unclear if all patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) ultimately develop progressive MS. Onset of progressive disease course seems to be age- rather than disease duration-dependent. Some forms of progressive MS (e.g. primary progressive MS (PPMS)) are uncommon in population-based studies. Ascertainment of patients with PPMS from clinic-based populations can facilitate a powerful comparison of age at progression onset between secondary progressive MS (SPMS) and PPMS but may introduce unclear biases. Objective: Our aim is to confirm that onset of progressive disease course is more relevant to the patient’s age than the presence or duration of a pre-progression relapsing disease course in MS. Methods: We studied a population-based MS cohort ( n =210, RRMS n =109, progressive MS n =101) and a clinic-based progressive MS cohort ( n =754). Progressive course was classified as primary (PPMS; n =322), single attack (SAPMS; n =112) and secondary progressive (SPMS; n =421). We studied demographics (chi 2 or t -test), age-of-progression-onset ( t -test) and time to Expanded Disability Status Scale of 6 (EDSS6) (Kaplan–Meier analyses). Results: Sex ratio ( p =0.58), age at progression onset ( p =0.37) and time to EDSS6 ( p =0.16) did not differ between the cohorts. Progression had developed before age 75 in 99% of patients with known progressive disease course; 38% with RRMS did not develop progression by age 75. Age at progression onset did not differ between SPMS (44.9±9.6), SAPMS (45.5±9.6) and PPMS (45.7±10.8). In either cohort, only 2% of patients had reached EDSS6 before onset of progression. Conclusions: Patients with RRMS do not inevitably develop a progressive disease course. Onset of progression is more dependent on age than the presence or duration of a pre-progression symptomatic disease course. Moderate disability is sustained predominantly after the onset of a progressive disease course in MS.