Radiology departments and practices could potentially improve the quality of their informed consent process by implementing a video-aided tool in addition to the current face-to-face consent process, according to a new study published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.

“Informed consent is one of the foundations of the patient-physician relationship,” said lead author Jonathan G. Martin, MD, with Emory University Hospital Midtown in Atlanta, and colleagues. “A primary goal of the consent process is to create a level of comprehension that allows patients to make, to the best of their abilities, informed judgements about their own clinical care.”

The study included 80 patients who had provided consent for interventional radiologic procedures and was made up of two phases. First, there was an in-person encounter between the patient and physician to discuss the procedure, alternatives and potential risks and benefits. The second phase added the video-aided consent in addition to the face-to-face consent process.

In the improvement surveys, an average of 7.9 of 10 an across-all-questions suggests there is still room for improvement for the current face-to-face consent processes. Across all categories, there was an increase in understanding from 7.3 to 8.1 of 10 after the initiation of the video-aided consent process.

“Our data suggest possible improvement of patient procedural understanding after implementation of the video-aided consent process,” the authors wrote. “Prior studies have also demonstrated benefit from implementing video consent in addition to verbal consent and have also seen significantly improved patient understanding, analogous to our study.”

The researchers noted that anecdotally, there was a significant decrease in time spent during the face-to-face portion of the consent process after video consent, during which patients still had the opportunity to have all of their questions and concerns addressed.

“This will drastically alter workflow in many practices, and one can easily imagine that the time saved with video-aided consent will become even more valuable,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted the validity of their survey or any official questionnaire to test the understanding of informed consent in interventional radiology has not been established.

“Methods such as video and written consent should serve as complementary add-on tools and not entirely replace the existing verbal consent process,” they concluded.