Features  |   May 2016
Predicting Patient Safety: Myth, Math and Mystery
Author Affiliations
  • Robert S. Lagasse, M.D.
    Committee on Patient Safety and Education
  • Marjorie Podraza Stiegler, M.D.
    Committee on Patient Safety and Education
  • Aimee M. Becker, M.D.
    Committee on Patient Safety and Education
Article Information
Ethics / Medicolegal Issues / Patient Safety / Quality Improvement / Features
Features   |   May 2016
Predicting Patient Safety: Myth, Math and Mystery
ASA Monitor 05 2016, Vol.80, 12-14.
ASA Monitor 05 2016, Vol.80, 12-14.
Obtaining informed consent to administer anesthesia is both an ethical and legal obligation for physician anesthesiologists. Standards vary slightly across states, but most ethicists and lawyers agree that sufficient information for informed decision-making requires knowledge by the patient of material risks. Material risks generally include those that have a high frequency (e.g., postoperative nausea and dental damage) as well as those with a low frequency and high severity (e.g., awareness, stroke and death).1  The legal test for the completeness of the list of material risks required for informed consent is often based on the “professional practice standard” established in 1960 (Nathanson v. Klein) or the “reasonable person standard” established in 1972 (Canterbury v. Spence).
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
0 Comments
Submit a Comment
Submit A Comment

Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest. Comments are moderated.

Name
Affiliation & Institution
I have a potential conflict of interest
Comment Title
Comment


This feature is available to Subscribers Only
ASA Member Login or Create an Account ×