AzTrials
AzTrials

Carpal TunnelNCT02071238

Factors Affecting Risk Recall in Open Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery

A study testing Pamphlet and Group Consultation in people with Carpal Tunnel, run by Michael Bezuhly at 1 site in Canada.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Understanding of an operation and its risks has been shown to give patients more realistic expectations, increase cooperation and result in higher satisfaction. Traditionally, informed consent for surgical procedures involve a discussion between the surgeon and the patient, but many patients easily forget the details… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 16 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Carpal Tunnel
What is being tested?
Pamphlet and Group Consultation
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
140 participants
Where
1 siteCanada
Study dates
May 2014to Dec 2015
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 16 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Referral to the Halifax Infirmary plastic surgery clinic for consultation for open carpal tunnel release

Who cannot join

  • Age less than 16 years
  • Inability to fluently communicate in English
  • Discussion of additional procedures
  • Prior open (not percutaneous) hand surgery
  • Inability to give informed consent

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Canada1 site
  • Capital District Health Authority

    Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3A7

Other trials in Canada

About this study

Understanding of an operation and its risks has been shown to give patients more realistic expectations, increase cooperation and result in higher satisfaction. Traditionally, informed consent for surgical procedures involve a discussion between the surgeon and the patient, but many patients easily forget the details of these talks. The investigators wish to investigate if providing a written pamphlet along with the standard oral discussion improves patients' ability to remember the details of the operation, improving the quality of the informed consent process.

In addition, we will test whether a group consultation format provides a model for large-volume, low-variation, low-urgency surgery without reducing ability to recall risks of surgery or overall satisfaction.

Read the detailed description

Objective of this study The investigators' study objectives are to see if additionally providing a written document along with the discussion of surgical risks improves risk recall for patient seen in consultation for open carpal tunnel release, and if this has any effect on overall satisfaction after the procedure.

To accomplish this goal, the investigators intend to provide patients with a written document outlining the same risks as are discussed in consultation and investigate if their recall of the risks is improved compared to patients who receive discussion alone. The investigators will also see whether risk recall is affected if patients participate in a group format informed consent discussion compared to a standard individual discussion. The investigators propose to do this as a two-part prospective randomized control trial of patients who are new referrals to the Halifax Infirmary Plastic Surgery Clinic.

Background The informed consent process The risks and benefits of an operation or procedure are typically discussed as part of the informed consent process for an initial surgical consultation. Informed consent is a legal requirement for surgery and is based on the components of disclosure, comprehension, competence and voluntary choice. Despite this, patients are often unable to recall the specific risks that were reviewed. Additionally, failure to understand the possible risks and failure of communication are more common reasons for patients to seek legal action. Patients have historically reported that they wished they had received more information about their operation prior to surgery.

Increased understanding of a procedure and its risks has been shown to give patients more realistic expectations, increase cooperation and result in higher satisfaction. Traditionally, obtaining informed consent for surgical procedures has involved an oral discussion, but this may be insufficient as oral information tends to be poorly retained.

Previous research in the field of otolaryngology has shown that written documentation in addition to oral discussion increases recall of both general knowledge of a procedure and of the specific risks of a procedure. Siau et al. (2010) found that this effect was even more pronounced for recall of the risks associated with the operation and that subjectively patients were found to be happy to have received a pamphlet and found it helpful. Early research into this subject in general surgery suggested that the optimal time to provide additional information regarding a procedure is at the time of the initial consultation or at least one week prior to surgery.

The investigators' research is important as it could show that providing a written document in conjunction with the standard oral discussion improves patients' risk recall in the informed consent process for open carpal tunnel surgery. In addition, the investigators wish to look into whether this in turn increases satisfaction with the procedure. Though past research has drawn a link between comprehension and satisfaction, very little research has been conducted specifically on this topic. In the future this research could be extended to other surgical practices.

Due to large volumes of patients requiring open carpal tunnel release, wait times following referral can vary from 30 to 151 days in Nova Scotia, with an average wait time of 59 days (Patient Access Registry NS, July-September 2013). While open carpal tunnel release surgery is a very brief procedure with an extremely low rate of post-operative complications (Ono et al., 2010), the presurgical consultation with each patient takes a large proportion of the time spent by both patient and surgeon addressing the disease. To address a similar problem involving extensive information required prior to surgery, the UHN breast reconstruction program in Toronto is in the process of piloting an educational group intervention, which includes seminar-style lectures and group discussion, in order to improve shared decision making in women undergoing post-mastectomy breast reconstruction (Platt et al., 2013). We seek to implement a similar program for patients scheduled to undergo open carpal tunnel release.

According to the Weiss model of medical stigma (Weiss et al., 2006), Carpal Tunnel Syndrome could be considered a disease with minimal stigma attached. As one would correspondingly expect, when offered the opportunity to participate in a group seminar style presurgical consult, many patients have expressed a positive opinion and willingness to participate.

If there are no differences between risk recall or general satisfaction in patients who are part of a group consultation compared to a traditional consult, group consultation may be a viable tool to shorten wait times for patients undergoing specific kinds of medical and surgical procedures.

Hypothesis The investigators are testing whether providing a written document in conjunction with the standard oral discussion improve patients' risk recall in the informed consent process for open carpal tunnel release and increase patients' subjective satisfaction with their operation. In addition, the investigators will test whether a group consultation format provides a model for large-volume, low-variation, low-urgency surgery without reducing ability to recall risks of surgery or overall satisfaction.

Patient Selection

The investigators study will be a two-part prospective randomized study, each of 100 consecutive patients being seen for open carpal tunnel release consultation at the Halifax Infirmary. Inclusion criteria will be:

The sample size was chosen based on previous studies investigating risk recall and a power calculation with the hypothesis of a mean of 4 items recalled, a standard deviation of 2.5 (alpha 0.05, beta 0.95), giving us a sample size given our hypothesis (n = 40 per study group).

Conditions
Carpal Tunnel
Being tested
Pamphlet, Group Consultation
Keywords
Carpal tunnel, Carpal tunnel release, Risk Recall, Patient satisfaction, Pamphlet, Brochure
Medical subject headings
Median Neuropathy, Patient Satisfaction

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • PamphletBehavioural

    Written pamphlet outlining the risks of surgery as discussed in consultation.

  • Group ConsultationBehavioural

    Informed consent discussion in group-format

Study groups in NCT02071238
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
PamphletExperimentalPatient group that will receive a written pamphlet outlining the risks of surgery as discussed in consultation.
Receives: Behavioral: Pamphlet
No pamphlet, individualNo interventionPatient group that will not receive a written pamphlet outlining the risks of surgery as discussed in consultation.
Group ConsultationExperimentalPatient group that will receive informed consent discussion in a group-format.
Receives: Behavioral: Group Consultation

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Number of risks recalled

    Number of risks discussed at time of initial visit that are remembered by the patient at a 2 week follow up phone call.

    Measured: 2-3 weeks

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Patient Satisfaction

    Patients' perceived satisfaction, as measured by a visual-analogue scale rating their satisfaction with the procedure.

    Measured: 3 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted25 Feb 2014 (estimated)
  2. Study startMay 2014
  3. Primary completionOct 2015
  4. Study completionDec 2015

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
140 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02071238
Sponsor's protocol ID
CDHA-RS/2014-244
Status last verified
Jan 2016
First submitted
21 Feb 2014
Last updated
13 Jan 2016
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • Lavelle-Jones C, Byrne DJ, Rice P, Cuschieri A. Factors affecting quality of informed consent. BMJ. 1993 Apr 3;306(6882):885-90. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6882.885.

    PubMed 8490411
  • Nadeau DP, Rich JN, Brietzke SE. Informed consent in pediatric surgery: Do parents understand the risks? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010 Mar;136(3):265-9. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2010.5.

    PubMed 20231645
  • Schenker Y, Fernandez A, Sudore R, Schillinger D. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2011 Jan-Feb;31(1):151-73. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10364247. Epub 2010 Mar 31.

    PubMed 20357225
  • Leclercq WK, Keulers BJ, Scheltinga MR, Spauwen PH, van der Wilt GJ. A review of surgical informed consent: past, present, and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions. World J Surg. 2010 Jul;34(7):1406-15. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0542-0.

    PubMed 20372902
  • Kessler TM, Nachbur BH, Kessler W. Patients' perception of preoperative information by interactive computer program-exemplified by cholecystectomy. Patient Educ Couns. 2005 Nov;59(2):135-40. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.10.009.

    PubMed 16257617
  • Siau D, List RJ, Hussin N, Woolford TJ. Do printed information leaflets improve recall of the procedure and risks in adult tonsillectomy? How we do it. Clin Otolaryngol. 2010 Dec;35(6):503-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2010.02227.x. No abstract available.

    PubMed 21199416
  • Hong P, Makdessian AS, Ellis DA, Taylor SM. Informed consent in rhinoplasty: prospective randomized study of risk recall in patients who are given written disclosure of risks versus traditional oral discussion groups. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009 Jun;38(3):369-74.

    PubMed 19476770
  • Ono S, Clapham PJ, Chung KC. Optimal management of carpal tunnel syndrome. Int J Gen Med. 2010 Aug 30;3:255-61. doi: 10.2147/ijgm.s7682.

    PubMed 20830201
  • Platt J, Baxter N, Jones J, Metcalfe K, Causarano N, Hofer SO, O'Neill A, Cheng T, Starenkyj E, Zhong T. Pre-consultation educational group intervention to improve shared decision-making in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013 Jul 6;14:199. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-199.

    PubMed 23829442
  • Weiss MG, Ramakrishna J, Somma D. Health-related stigma: rethinking concepts and interventions. Psychol Health Med. 2006 Aug;11(3):277-87. doi: 10.1080/13548500600595053.

    PubMed 17130065

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Pamphlet and Group Consultation in people with Carpal Tunnel, run by Michael Bezuhly at 1 site in Canada.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Jan 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Number of risks recalled (time frame: 2-3 weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02071238, which also lists 10 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 Jan 2016.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in