Learning from informed consent litigation to improve practices: A systematic review - Archive ouverte HAL
Accéder directement au contenu Accéder directement à la navigation
Article dans une revue

Learning from informed consent litigation to improve practices: A systematic review

Abstract : Objective: To describe the reasons that lead judges to qualify malpractice as a lack of information, then rule in favour or not of the health professional (HP). Methods: We conducted a systematic review of case law relating to the breach of disclosure obligations over a ten-year period from 2010 to 2020. We used 3 legal databases: Légifrance, Dalloz and Lexis 360, all identified as the most exhaustive. Results: Of the 514 law cases included: judges found malpractice owing to lack of information in 377 (73.3%) cases. Among the latter, malpractices were lack of risk information (N = 257, 68.2%), lack of proof of information (N = 243, 64.5%) and/or lack of information on therapeutic alternatives (N = 49, 13.0%). These malpractices resulted in a conviction of the HP in 268 (71.1%) of the cases. Conclusion: Case law is an important source of information for improving the quality of HP, lawyers, and judges' practices. Practice implications: This review suggests that.
Liste complète des métadonnées

https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-03697178
Contributeur : Agnès Peignier Connectez-vous pour contacter le contributeur
Soumis le : jeudi 16 juin 2022 - 15:18:22
Dernière modification le : mardi 13 septembre 2022 - 15:38:10

Identifiants

Citation

Karine Giudici-Wach, Pierre Gillois, Thomas Remen, Frédérique Claudot. Learning from informed consent litigation to improve practices: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling, Elsevier, 2022, 105 (7), pp.1714-1721. ⟨10.1016/j.pec.2021.10.009⟩. ⟨hal-03697178⟩

Partager

Métriques

Consultations de la notice

12