Informed Consent in Otologic Surgery: Prospective Study of Risk Recall by Patients and Impact of Written Summaries of Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how much patients remember of the risks discussed with them about their otologic surgery and to evaluate whether a simple intervention, the addition of an information handout, improves recall. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized trial was undertaken in the setting of an academic tertiary care centre. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing a variety of otologic procedures, including mastoidectomy, tympanoplasty, ossiculoplasty, and stapedectomy, were verbally consented by the operating surgeon with a standard checklist of potential surgical complications and side effects. Two surgeons participated in the study (40 patients and 10 patients). Patients were stratified into two groups: a higher education group and a lower education group. Within each group, patients were randomized to either a control group, consisting of a verbal explanation only, or an intervention group, which added a written handout to the verbal explanation. A follow-up telephone interview was conducted at an average of 20.6 days (range 14-53) to survey for recall of the complications discussed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure is risk recall. This is analyzed by education level and written sheet intervention. Other parameters examined are patient demographics, time elapsed from when the consent was obtained, and surgeon obtaining the consent. RESULTS: All 50 patients were interviewed in follow-up. Twenty-two patients received the handout (intervention arm), and 28 patients served as the control group. Overall recall, expressed as a percentage of risks explained, was 54% for the entire study group. For those who received the handout, the recall rate was 51%, whereas the rate was actually higher, at 56%, for those who did not receive the handout. This difference was not statistically significant. Of the specific risks discussed, patient recall was consistently high for the complications of facial nerve paralysis, 88%, and for complete hearing loss, at 88%. Other risks, such as dizziness, 31%, and change in taste, 36%, were not as commonly recalled. Receiving the handout made only a significant difference with one complication, facial nerve paralysis. CONCLUSION: The addition of a handout did not significantly alter recall of potential complications of otologic surgery with the exception of facial nerve paralysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".