Overlapping Surgery Verbiage in Informed Consent Documents

Objective: To assess informed consent documents from United States (US) institutions for verbiage regarding overlapping surgery. Summary background data: Overlapping surgery remains a controversial practice. Recent guidance from the Senate Finance Committee and American College of Surgeons emphasizes transparency with patients regarding this practice through the informed consent process, but it remains unclear how many institutions adopted their recommendations. Methods: Informed consent documents were collected from a national sample of 104 institutions and assessed for verbiage regarding overlapping surgery and/or attending absence during a surgical case. The verbiage of these forms was further analyzed for inclusion of key terms (e.g., “overlapping surgery,” “critical portions”) as well as transparency regarding surgeon absence. Results: Thirty (29%) forms included verbiage regarding overlapping surgery and/or surgeon absence during a case. Most of these 30 utilized the terms “overlapping surgery” or “critical portions” (18 [60%] and 25 [83%], respectively), although only 3 (10%) explicitly stated that portions of the procedure that may be performed in the absence of the attending surgeon. Six forms (20%) specifically stated who may perform the procedure without the attending present, and 3 forms (10%) had patients acknowledge this section of the consent form with an additional signature or initial. Only 2 of the forms (7%) fulfilled all of the criteria set forth by the SFC. Conclusion: Detailed information regarding overlapping surgery is infrequently included in hospitals’ procedure informed consent documents. Forms that include this information rarely provide explicit statements of attending presence and trainee participation, raising concerns regarding surgeon-patient transparency.