RESUMEN
From January 2000, the Council of State has harmonised the jurisprudence with the Court of Appeal, changing the responsibility of medical practitioners by requiring them to provide proof that information was both given and understood by their patients. This obligation to inform patients raises several questions: who should give the information? to whom should the information be addressed? how can proof of this information be provided? what should the information be? The authors sent a questionnaire to practicing cardiologists by the internet site of the French Society of Cardiology from the 1st December 2002 to 15th January 2003. Three hundred and thirty-two replies were received of which 305 could be exploited. The activities of the cardiologists who replied were mainly in public hospitals (51.8%), private (18.2%) or mixed (30%). Patient information was mainly performed before invasive procedures, especially coronary angiography (90%) or cardiac pacing (77.3%). On the other hand, it was less commonly undertaken before exercise stress tests (63.2%) or transoesophageal echocardiography (61.4%), although these percentages are much higher than those recorded during previous enquiries in 2000 and 2001. The information given was, in the large majority of cases, that proposed by the French Society of Cardiology and it was usually the practitioner who ordered the investigation who informed the patient (45.4%). In 2002, the role of the nurse was much greater as the nurse informed the patient in 27.2% of cases. The patient was generally given the information the day before the procedure was carried out (74.1%) with complementary information (90.7%), and less than 1% of patients declined the investigation under these conditions. In order to provide proof of patient information, the practitioner usually required the patient's signature (58.3% of cases); less commonly, the referring physician was informed by letter (13.9% of cases) or a note was made in the patient's file (33.9% of cases). The new requirements for patient information have changed medical practice in nearly 53.5% of cases. Finally, although patient information is considered to be part of the normal patient-doctor relationship in most cases (42.7%), doctors thought that patients interpreted this procedure as a cover for the medical team in 18.2% of cases. The information bases most commonly used to determine the methods of informing patients and the nature of the information to be provided were medical reviews (38.9%) or the internet (30.5%). The authors conclude that patient information is carried out before complementary cardiological investigations. The new laws of the Code of Public Health are not well known. Finally, the proof of patient information is not easily provided and the majority of cardiologists request written patient consent, which is not a legal requirement.
Asunto(s)
Revelación/ética , Revelación/normas , Cardiopatías/diagnóstico , Humanos , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/normas , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
AIM OF THE STUDY: The patient's information prior to paraclinical testings is a part of the medical deontology and takes on increasing legal importance since new laws. METHODS: From December 2001 to January 2002, we administered to cardiologists through the website of the French Society of Cardiology a questionnaire in order to determine the way the information is dispensed to patients and to compare the results to the survey performed in 2000. RESULTS: Among the 293 answers obtained, 243 were utilizable. The answers were obtained from cardiologists working on private medicine (27.5%), public medicine (52.8%) or mixed (19.7%). Information was more frequently dispensed for invasive procedures: coronary angiography (92.2%), cardiac pacing (76.8%) than non invasive assessments: transesophageal echocardiography (47.6%) and treadmill test (44.7%). The most frequent information document given to patients was the one edited by the French Society of Cardiology (71.6%). In the great majority of cases, there is the prescribing cardiologist (35.9%) and/or the one performing the assessment who dispenses the information, generally the day prior the examination (73.5%) with additive explanations (91.4%). Few patients refuse the examination after information. The situation where the assessment is performed on a patient without the faculty of understanding modalities and the necessity of that examination is in emergency (45%). In 63.4% of cases, the cardiologist requires the patients signature on the information document. CONCLUSION: Information dispensation prior to an examination is generally well done by cardiologists. The evidence of the information's dispensation is not at ease and most of cardiologists require written document from their patients, which is not legally necessary.
Asunto(s)
Cardiología , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Angiografía Coronaria , Ecocardiografía , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , HumanosRESUMEN
UNLABELLED: The localisation of aldosterone-producing adenomas (APA's) remains difficult. Indeed, CT scan may not detect small APA's while CT detected tumours do not necessarily produce aldosterone. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of adrenal vein catheterization (AVC) for the diagnosis of APA's and also the rates of unsuccessful procedures and complications. PATIENTS: One-hundred-and-nine hypertensives with biological features of primary hyperaldosteronism were included. Plasma sodium, potassium, aldosterone and renin levels were obtained after one night in lying position. Aldosterone and renin levels were also measured after a one-hour walking period and after a sodium expansion with saline. All patients underwent a CT scan and AVC. For adrenal samples, the ratio of aldosterone to cortisol concentrations was calculated for both sides. Both ratios were divided by the opposite one and the higher was retained as an index of laterization (IL). For lack of a golden standard variable, we have taken as a working hypothesis that operated patients had an APA (n = 38) and the non operated ones bilateral hypereplasia (n = 71). RESULTS: Operated patients had a shorter history of hypertension, more frequently a left ventricular hypertrophy on ECG, and lower serum creatinine and potassium levels, along with a higher sodium level. None of these features appeared discriminant, however. Presence of a 10-mm tumour on CT scan was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Operated patients had more than a five-fold higher IL compared with that of non-operated patients. Analysis using a ROC curve showed that the value of 12 for "IL" was an acceptable operational criterium of lateralization, producing a specificity of 90%, while maintaining a sensitivity of 62%. AVC appeared most useful in case of middle-range pre-test probability of an APA being present, that is when when clinical, biological, or radiological features are not fully concordant. The rate of unsuccessful procedure and the rate of complications were low (1.8% and 3.6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: With a low iatrogenicity, AVC appears helpful in indicating surgery mostly when clinical, biological, and CT scan features are not fully concordant. A value of 12 for IL appears to allow a high specificity while retaining an acceptable sensitivity.