Table 4

Comparison of the physician's explanatory behaviours between negligent and non-negligent groups concerning the physician's duty to explain: n (%)

Physician's explanatory behaviours

Court decision with respect to a physician's duty to explain

p-valuea


Negligent

Non-negligent


Purpose of the physician's explanation (explanation to obtain patient's consent)

91 (62.8%)

121 (70.3%)

0.153

Issue of the physician's explanation (no explanation)

26 (17.9%)

35 (20.3%)

0.586

Timing of the physician's explanation (before treatment or surgery)

85 (71.4%)

117 (85.4%)

0.006

Who received the physician's explanation (patient only)

50 (42.0%)

49 (35.5%)

0.285

Manner of the physician's explanation to the patient (oral only)

70 (77.8%)

73 (73.7%)

0.518

Manner of the physician's explanation to family (oral only)

60 (85.7%)

68 (78.2%)

0.225

Level of the physician's explanation to the patient (relevant and specific)

0 (0.0%)

59 (65.6%)

0.000

Level of the physician's explanation to family (relevant and specific)

1 (1.5%)

47 (69.1%)

0.000

Location of the physician's explanation (inpatient ward)

62 (42.8%)

110 (64.0%)

0.000

Content of the physician's explanation (related to surgery)

46 (31.5%)

63 (36.4%)

0.357

Number of times that the physician explained (once)

49 (41.9%)

59 (44.4%)

0.693

Consent by the patient (with the patient's consent)

61 (82.4%)

88 (96.7%)

0.002

Consent by family (with family's consent)

45 (93.8%)

66 (90.4%)

0.384

Written consent by the patient (presence)

22 (45.8%)

22 (59.5%)

0.213

Written consent by family (presence)

15 (41.7%)

21 (56.8%)

0.491

The day of physician's explanation (not the same day)

57 (69.5%)

93 (85.3%)

0.008


a t-test or χ2 test; results printed in bold are significant (p < 0.05)

Hamasaki and Hagihara BMC Medical Ethics 2011 12:7   doi:10.1186/1472-6939-12-7

Open Data