Search results

The main purpose of the study was to investigate practices relating to informed consent for radiological procedures.

All Health Boards in Scotland (15) were included in the survey and 62 hospitals were contacted. A questionnaire was developed and sent to superintendent radiographers and radiology managers. Quantitative data were entered in to SPSS‐PC for analysis.

A response rate of 95.2 per cent (59/62) was achieved. A total of 15 hospitals described having a trust policy document on consent and six hospitals reported departmental policies. The majority of hospitals used consent forms for interventional procedures, but not for conventional procedures, although two hospitals obtained informed consent for intravenous urography, and one for barium enemas. All departments (n=25/25) using consent forms required the patient to sign the consent form and 20 departments retained the form. Nine departments placed these in the patient's medical records.

The survey demonstrated considerable diversity in hospital practices regarding informed consent for radiological procedures. The findings have significant implications for clinical governance, especially regarding risk management. Some staff may be putting themselves at risk in an increasingly litigious society. The transferability of this Scottish study needs to be established through surveys in other parts of the UK.

The study reports diversity in practice when gaining informed consent for radiological procedures and the lack of standardisation for this process.

No previous UK empirical studies on informed consent for radiological procedures has been published.

Despite the fact research is a foundation stone of clinical governance little attention has been focused on the relationship between the two. Describes here a course for radiographers run in partnership between a large acute teaching trust and local university in the north‐east of Scotland which sought to increase awareness of the research /clinical governance interface. The aims of the course were to develop research appraisal skills; develop investigative skills, especially with regard to planning and undertaking a project; and facilitate staff to review systematically their own practice. The course called on the expertise of staff from both health care and education. The course was viewed positively by the participants. Outcomes were seen to relate to three main areas: joint working; staff appraisal of practice and further development of audit. Recommends that in the future the course be offered on a multi‐disciplinary basis.

Presents models suggesting how research evidence can best be operationalised within health care commissioning. Models were derived from data gathered from surveys of Scottish health board managers and GP fundholders regarding the use of information in commissioning from 1995 to 1997. Feedback on the models was obtained subsequently from practitioners in 1998. Two models, one for health board managers and the other for GPs, are presented. These include critical success factors in achieving evidence‐based commissioning and factors that are likely to predispose and precipitate evidence‐based practice. Given a culture demanding transparency, accountability and continuing improvement, the models provide tools for reflection, evaluation and planning. In addition, they identify a pragmatic role for managers in evidence‐based commissioning and provide a framework for audit.