Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:51:44.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A descriptive assessment of the informed consent document used by congenital cardiac surgery centres

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2023

Kristal M. Hock Open the ORCID record for Kristal M. Hock [Opens in a new window] ,
Katja Gist ,
Pariya L. Fazeli ,
Hayden J. Zaccagni ,
Robert A. Sorabella  and
Patricia A. Patrician
Kristal M. Hock*
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Section of Cardiac Critical Care Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
Katja Gist
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
Pariya L. Fazeli
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
Hayden J. Zaccagni
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Section of Cardiac Critical Care Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
Robert A. Sorabella
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
Patricia A. Patrician
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
*
Corresponding author: Kristal M. Hock; Email: kristalhock@uabmc.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Informed consent for surgery is a complex process particularly in paediatrics. Complexity increases with procedures such as CHD surgery. Regulatory agencies outline informed consent contents for surgery. We assessed and described CHD surgical informed consent contents through survey dissemination to paediatric CHD centres across United States of America.

Methods:

Publicly available email addresses for 125 paediatric cardiac clinicians at 70 CHD surgical centres were obtained. Nine-item de-identified survey assessing adherence to The Joint Commission informed consent standards was created and distributed via RedCap® 14 March, 2023. A follow-up email was sent 29 March, 2023. Survey link was closed 18 April, 2023.

Results:

Thirty-seven surveys were completed. Results showed informed consent documents were available in both paper (25, 68%) and electronic (3, 8%) format. When both (9, 24%) formats were available, decision on which format to use was based on centre protocols (1, 11%), clinician personal preference (3, 33%), procedure being performed (1, 11%), or other (4, 45%). Five (13%) centres’ informed consent documents were available only in English, with 32 (87%) centres also having a Spanish version. Review of informed consent documents demonstrated missing The Joint Commission elements including procedure specific risks, benefits, treatment alternatives, and expected outcomes.

Conclusions:

Informed consent for CHD surgery is a complex process with multiple factors involved. Majority of paediatric CHD surgical centres in the United States of America used a generic informed consent document which did not uniformly contain The Joint Commission specified information nor reflect time spent in discussion with families. Further research is needed on parental comprehension during the informed consent process.

Keywords

Informed consentcongenital cardiac surgeryethical standards
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , May 2024 , pp. 1039 - 1044
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Each year, approximately 1% (40,000) of babies in the United States of America are born with CHD. Reference Hoffman and Kaplan1 Of the babies born with CHD, one in four are identified as being critical or require surgery or other invasive interventional procedures during the first year of life. Reference Oster, Lee, Honein, Riehle-Colarusso, Shin and Correa2 Informed consent is required prior to surgical encounters. Informed consent is a complex process that involves multiple individuals and has been documented as being poorly understood by patients and families. Reference Hock, Dick, Loan and Patrician3–Reference Parker and Mortimore8 It is during the informed consent process that the provider explains the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure. Reference Shah, Thornton and Turrin9 There are several guidelines (legal and best practices) for the informed consent process, the topics to be covered, and what the document to be signed should contain. Reference Edwards, Lilford, Thornton and Hewison10–14 Importantly, the clinician should present a surgical option in which they believe there is an overall benefit to the patient, in addition to ensuring that it is presented in a manner that can be easily understood by the patient so that an informed decision can be made. Reference Sarela15

There are inherent challenges in parental comprehension of CHD. First, CHD is considered a complex condition which adds additional layers to an already complicated process. 16–Reference Tuo, Pini Prato, Derchi, Mosconi, Mattioli and Marasini20 Second, as critical CHD requires hospitalisation and clinical or surgical intervention so early in the life of the child, this can add additional stress on parents who will be participating in the informed consent discussion. Reference Bevilacqua, Morini and Ragni21–Reference Wigert, Dellenmark Blom and Bry23 Third, as surgical or procedural complexity increases, there is an increased likelihood that the complexity of informed consent process also increases. Therefore, research is needed to understand the informed consent process for caregivers and providers of patients with CHD.

Institutional variation in the type of information included in the informed consent document, including whether this information varies by procedure is unknown. Federal regulations specify various items that must be included in the informed consent document. Some of these items include the surgical procedures risks, benefits, and alternatives to treatment. 24 A systematic review of the informed consent process performed by Giudici-Wach et al. examined medical malpractice cases in France and the information or lack thereof that led to the judges’ decisions. Reference Giudici-Wach, Gillois, Remen and Claudot25 The authors demonstrated that studying case law in a particular area (i.e. informed consent) could lead to identification of processes needing improvement.

One area of malpractice identified was the ‘lack of proof of information’ or the lack of written documentation of information discussed during the informed consent process. Reference Giudici-Wach, Gillois, Remen and Claudot25 This lack of proof could either be documentation by the health care team member performing the informed consent discussion or in the informed consent document itself. In our clinical experience, the same informed consent document was used throughout the institution regardless of the procedure being performed. This is potentially problematic because the informed consent document does not contain procedure-specific information such as risks, benefits, or alternative treatments. Reference Terranova, Ferro and Carpeggiani26 The purpose of this study was to evaluate only the contents of informed consent documents used for paediatric congenital heart surgery across cardiac centres in the United States of America and determine whether the content included critical information recommended by The Joint Commission. Evaluation of centre-specific informed consent documents (provided by the sites) was also performed. Centre-specific informed consent processes, documentation by health care provider performing the informed consent discussion, or additional educational information provided to families to assist in the informed consent process, were not assessed as part of this study.

Methods and materials

A multicentre observational study was completed to assess the informed consent document used at paediatric congenital cardiac surgical centres in the United States of America and Canada. The institutional review board at the University of Alabama at Birmingham reviewed and approved this study with a waiver of informed consent. (IRB-300010833, approval date 08 March 2023). A survey (both qualitative and quantitative) was created and distributed in RedCAP® with questions based on adherence to current standards for clinical informed consent components from The Joint Commission. Prior to dissemination, survey questions were reviewed by four independent reviewers for wording, context, and relationship to study aims. Three of the reviewers (KG, RS, and HZ) were selected based on their clinical expertise in paediatric CHD and their experience with the informed consent process and the informed consent document used in CHD. The final survey included nine questions in which provider’s responded with: yes, no, or I do not know to whether their informed consent assesses the following components: (1) risks of procedure, (2) benefits of procedure, (3) alternative treatments, (4) expected procedural outcomes, and (5) if centres have a separate consent document specific for paediatric congenital heart surgery. Whether they used paper or electronic informed consent forms and the number and types of languages of the informed consent document were also assessed.

Seventy paediatric congenital heart centres were identified in the United States of America and Canada. Email addresses for 125 clinicians (Pediatric Cardiologist, Paediatric Cardiac Intensivists, and Congenital Cardiac Surgeons) associated with the 70 centres were obtained through publicly available online resources. The initial email with the survey link was sent to the clinicians on 14 March, 2023. Respondents were asked to identify their clinical role within their centre (i.e., cardiac intensivist, paediatric cardiologist, surgeon). The email also asked for the recipients to forward the survey link to individuals at their centre who participated in the surgical informed consent discussion. Respondents’ names, centre or university names, or locations were not collected. Respondents were also asked to upload a de-identified copy of their current cardiac surgery informed consent document. On 29 March, 2023 the survey link was re-mailed to the recipients in an attempt to increase the number of respondents. The survey link was closed on 18 April, 2023.

Study results are presented as descriptive statistics with continuous variables presented as median with interquartile range and categorical variables presented as frequencies and percentages.

Results

Of the 125 clinicians at 70 unique cardiac centres who were invited to participate in the survey, 37 responded. Of the 37 individuals who completed the questionnaire, 22 (59%) were part of the surgical team who have direct involvement in the informed consent process. Table 1 shows a list of individual roles of those who completed the questionnaire. Based on the responses, the majority of centres do not have a separate consent form specific for paediatric cardiac surgery [24 (65%)], 10 (27%) centres have an informed consent document specific to paediatric cardiac surgery, and 3 (8%) of the respondents did not know. Only 12 (32%) centres do not have a separate section on their informed consent document that explains the risks of the procedure being performed. For those informed consent documents that do contain a separate section explaining procedure risks (22/37) (59%), 13 (36%) are annotated based on the specific surgical procedure while 9 (24%) have standard risks listed as part of the consent form template. The majority of centres do not have a separate section explaining the benefits of the procedure [24 (65%)] or an explanation of alternative treatments [28 (76%)]. Thirty-one (84%) of the centres’ informed consent documents do not contain a separate section for expected postoperative outcomes.

Table 1. Informed consent questionnaire for N = 37 providers that completed the survey.

The majority of centres have an informed consent document that is available in paper only format [25 (68%)], while 9 (24%) have both a paper and electronic format. For the nine centres that have both, the reasoning behind which format to use had a range of responses, from being protocol driven [1 (11%)], personal preference of the clinician performing the informed consent discussion [3 (33%)], determined by which surgical procedure was being performed [1 (11%)], and various other responses [4 (45%)]. One centre stated that even though the informed consent document is available in both formats, their centre always uses the paper version. Two centres stated that computer complications are what determined which version to use as well as the setting (inpatient or outpatient).

When questioned about which languages the informed consent document was available in, 32 (87%) had a language other than English, all had a Spanish version of their consent document [37 (100%)], 2 (6%) had a French version, and 3 (9%) had a version other than English, Spanish, or French (1-Somali version, 2-five or more languages available in addition to Spanish).

Only six centres provided a de-identified version of their centres’ informed consent document. All six informed consent documents were multipurpose (i.e., surgery, diagnostic treatment, administration of blood products, and administration of anaesthesia) and none of them contained information specific to cardiac surgery. Only one of the six informed consent documents provided contained information describing potential risks. Information regarding potential benefits, alternative treatments, or potential outcomes of the procedures being performed was not included across all six of the informed consent documents.

Discussion

Paediatric congenital heart surgery is an exceedingly complex procedure, and it is imperative that the informed consent process facilitates sufficient understanding among caregivers to ensure that they make the best medical decision given the circumstances for their child. With that in mind, the intent of this study was to evaluate the content of informed consent documents. This multisite descriptive survey study revealed that a majority of informed consent documents for paediatric congenital heart surgery do not contain specific sections for all elements specified in the Federal Regulations. 24 In addition, specific information on risks, benefits, and alternative treatments is often not adequately described within the informed consent document. In the absence of interviews with individuals obtaining comj nsent, or an assessment of parental comprehension, we were unable to quantify the extent to which we believe the procedure, its risks and benefits and alternative treatments are discussed, which was not the intent of this study. However, it is possible that the absence of this information on the generic institutional informed consent forms may contribute to a poor understanding and retention of the verbal discussion between caregivers and healthcare professionals, including when there is the need for an interpreter, although this is only speculation. Moreover, we recognise that customised informed consent forms for every cardiac procedure has the potential to create challenges, especially as procedures change and are often times personalised for the patient. This lack of written information emphasises one of the potential barriers to the informed consent process in that patients are presented with the information the clinical team deems important and not always the information the patient wants to hear. Reference Firdouse, Wajchendler, Koyle and Fecteau27

Despite widespread availability of electronic health records, only 8% of the informed consent documents reported in this study were available electronically. As medicine and technology advance, the use of electronic medical records is becoming more widely used in health care centres. This has the potential to help enhance the informed consent process, including customisation for specific procedures. Reference Glaser, Nouri and Fernandez28 A systematic review by Kiernan et al showed that the use of electronic informed consent forms had a positive effect on the informed consent process. Reference Parker and Mortimore8 Electronic informed consent documents allow for the addition of supplemental information to be added into the document when certain conditions are met (i.e., risks, benefits, and alternatives). A surgical team could work with their information technology department to customise the informed consent document based on a particular procedure. For CHD surgical procedures, the electronic informed consent document could populate information specific to the use of cardiopulmonary bypass, risk of cardiac arrest and/or death, risk of infection, or risk of arrhythmias to name a few. However, even in these circumstances, paper versions or print outs of electronic versions should still be available for parents wish to reference the material at a later time.

Results of the qualitative assessment of the six consent forms generally supported the results of the survey outcomes (Table 2). All of the provided informed consent documents contained a single sentence stating that the surgical procedure risks, benefits, and alternatives had been explained to the parents/guardians but did not contain any information regarding what information was covered, how the information was presented, or who discussed the information with the parents/legal guardian. Several studies have shown that individuals retain information better when it is presented in formats other than just verbal discussion. Reference Book, Goedeke, Poplawski and Muensterer4–Reference Gentry, Lepere and Opel6,Reference Firdouse, Wajchendler, Koyle and Fecteau27,Reference Friedlander, Loeben and Finnegan29 Glaser et al performed a systematic review assessing ways to improve patient comprehension for medical and surgical procedures. This review showed that written material provided to patients at a 2nd grade reading level in addition to the informed consent document was best understood when compared to the standard informed consent document alone. Reference Dreisinger and Zapolsky30 The current standard regulation for informed consent documents is to be written at an 8th grade level. 14

Table 2. Assessment of centre-specific IC documents.

Each informed consent discussion is unique and based on the individual patient’s cardiac lesion and the procedure being performed. This can be a complex and nuanced discussion for clinicians, not only because of the complicated types of repairs but also because they are engaging in this discussion most often with a proxy to the patient (parents, legal guardians, or medical proxies). Reference Gentry, Lepere and Opel6,Reference Friedlander, Loeben and Finnegan29,Reference O’Brien, Jacobs and Pasquali31 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons had developed a mortality assessment score, which is assigned to each congenital heart surgical procedure and is based on the complexity of the surgery and risk of mortality. Reference Blake, Copel and Kleinman32 Cardiac surgical procedures with a mortality score of 5 will inherently have more risks than those whose mortality score is 1. However, this study has shown that the same informed consent document is used to consent patients for all mortality categories and that it contains the same information regardless of the procedure being performed. While we are not marginalising the extensive discussions that take place between the surgeon and patient and parent/guardian, we do want to highlight opportunities for process improvement in the extisting informed consent documents evaluated from the multiple participating institutions.

For cyanotic congenital heart lesions that require intervention within the neonatal period, the alternatives to treatment include death. Reference Fontana and Edwards33–Reference Chan, Di Gennaro, Farris, Radman and McMullan38 In such complex and stressful decision-making situations, the comprehension of the consenting adult may be impaired and may result in decisions based on fear of death versus true understanding. In instances such as these, there is an informed consent discussion that occurs, there is an informed consent document that is signed, but in reality, the consenting adult is providing consent for the procedure to be performed but to call it an informed decision may be an exaggeration. Indeed, future studies focusing on qualitative assessments of the process and parental comprehension are needed. This concept of informed consent is often a common theme in research on improvement of the informed consent process as healthcare advances and changes are made to move from practices grounded in paternalism to those that truly encompass shared decision making. Reference Parker and Mortimore8,Reference White, Kelleman, Sidonio, Kochilas, Patel and Sidonio39,Reference Mishuris and Linder40

This descriptive study has several limitations. First, the questionnaire was only emailed mainly to Paediatric Cardiologists and Paediatric Cardiac Intensivists whose email addresses are publicly available online (only three surgeons were emailed directly), the 22 members of the surgical team who completed the questionnaire had it forwarded to them by the receiving clinician, thus requiring further steps and likely reducing the response rate from the surgical team who are obtaining consent. Second, responses were de-identified, making it impossible to discern whether more than one response was obtained from a single centre. Third, although the questions asked via the questionnaire were designed to be objective, several responses were very subjective, suggesting the informed consent process is indeed a process and not a set protocol. Lastly, this questionnaire did not assess items involved in the informed consent process (i.e., length of informed consent discussion, information provided to individuals prior to the informed consent discussion to improve comprehension, time of the informed consent discussion in relation to the surgical procedure being performed).

This descriptive study provides a glimpse into the informed consent document used for these surgical procedures. The informed consent document used for congenital cardiac surgery does not always contain the information as outlined by federal regulations, which may have negative impacts on the decision making of the parents/legal guardians. Further research is needed into the informed consent process for congenital cardiac surgery and how information regarding procedural risks, benefits, and alternatives is provided to the parents/legally authorised representatives and ways to improve comprehension so that true informed consent can be obtained.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided through departmental funds from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Section of Cardiac Critical Care Medicine.

Financial support

Funding for this project was provided by the University of Alabama at Birmingham Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Section of Cardiac Critical Care.

Competing interests

None.

Ethical standard

This manuscript does not involve human or animal experimentation.

Footnotes

University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board (IRB-3000010833 date 08 March 2023) waived informed consent.

References

Hoffman, JL, Kaplan, S. The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39: 1890–1900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oster, ME, Lee, KA, Honein, MA, Riehle-Colarusso, T, Shin, M, Correa, A. Temporal trends in survival among infants with critical congenital heart defects. Pediatrics 2013; 131: e1502–1508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hock, KM, Dick, TK, Loan, LA, Patrician, PA. Does the standard medical procedure consent process meet the criteria required for informed consent? A concept analysis. Nurs Outlook 2023; 71: 101916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Book, F, Goedeke, J, Poplawski, A, Muensterer, OJ. Access to an online video enhances the consent process, increases knowledge, and decreases anxiety of caregivers with children scheduled for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled study. J Pediatr Surg 2020; 55: 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falagas, ME, Korbila, IP, Giannopoulou, KP, Kondilis, BK, Peppas, G. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg 2009; 198: 420–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentry, KR, Lepere, K, Opel, DJ. Informed consent in pediatric anesthesiology. Paediatr Anaesth 2017; 27: 1253–1260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiernan, A, Fahey, B, Guraya, SS, et al. Digital technology in informed consent for surgery: systematic review. BJS Open 2023; 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, J, Mortimore, G. Consent in surgery. Br J Nurs 2023; 32: 588–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, P, Thornton, I, Turrin, D, et al. Informed consent [updated 2022 Jun 11]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island, FL, 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/ Google Scholar
Edwards, SJ, Lilford, RJ, Thornton, J, Hewison, J. Informed consent for clinical trials: in search of the “best” method. Soc Sci Med 1998; 47: 1825–1840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wescott 2005. Medical-Legal Issues in Risk Management: Improving Quality of Care & Reducing Medical Liability. Wescott Professional Publications, Lebanon, PA, 2005.Google Scholar
Pape, T. Legal and ethical considerations of informed consent. AORN J 1997; 65: 1122–1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pizzi, LT, Goldfarb, NI, Nash, DB. Procedures for obtaining informed consent. In: Shojania, K, Duncan, B, McDonald, K, Wachter, RM (eds). Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 43; AHRQ Publication 01-E058, Rockville, MD, 2001: 546–554.Google Scholar
AMA 1998. Informed Consent. American Medical Association, 1998, Updated March 2005. Retrieved April 1, 2003, from http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4608.html Google Scholar
Sarela, AI. Does the General Medical Council’s 2020 guidance on consent advance on its 2008 guidance? J Med Ethics 2022; 48: 948–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cardiovascular Disease Australian Facts 2011. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, 2011: 220.Google Scholar
Mitchell, SC, Korones, SB, Berendes, HW. Congenital heartdisease in 56,109 births: incidence and natural history. Circulation 1971; 43: 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linde, D, Konings, EE, Slager, MA, et al. Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: 2241–2247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wren, C, Birrell, G, Hawthorne, G. Cardiovascular malformations in infants of diabetic mothers. Heart 2003; 89: 1217–1220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuo, G, Pini Prato, A, Derchi, M, Mosconi, M, Mattioli, G, Marasini, M. Hirschsprung’s disease and associated congenital heart defects: a prospective observational study from a single institution. Front Pediatr 2014; 2: 99–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bevilacqua, F, Morini, F, Ragni, B, et al. Pediatric medical traumatic stress (PMTS) in parents of newborns with a congenital anomaly requiring surgery at birth. J Pediatr Surg 2021; 56: 471–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bevilacqua, F, Palatta, S, Mirante, N, et al. Birth of a child with congenital heart disease: emotional reactions of mothers and fathers according to time of diagnosis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013; 26: 1249–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigert, H, Dellenmark Blom, M, Bry, K. Parents’ experiences of communication with neonatal intensive-care unit staff: an interview study. BMC Pediatr 2014; 14: 304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Code of Regulations Title 45. 482.51 (b)(2) Federal requirement of informed consent. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-A/section-46.116 Google Scholar
Giudici-Wach, K, Gillois, P, Remen, T, Claudot, F. Learning from informed consent litigation to improve practices: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2022; 105: 1714–1721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terranova, G, Ferro, M, Carpeggiani, C, et al. Low quality and lack of clarity of current informed consent forms in cardiology: how to improve them. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2012; 5: 649–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firdouse, M, Wajchendler, A, Koyle, M, Fecteau, A. Checklist to improve informed consent process in pediatric surgery: a pilot study. J Pediatr Surg 2017; 52: 859–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaser, J, Nouri, S, Fernandez, A, et al. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consetn for medical and surgical procedures: an updated systematic review. Med Decis Making 2020; 40: 119–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedlander, JA, Loeben, GS, Finnegan, PK, et al. A novel method to enhance informed consent: a prospective and randomised trial of form-based versus electronic assisted informed consent in paediatric endoscopy. J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 194–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dreisinger, N, Zapolsky, N. Complexities of consent: ethics in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 2018; 34: 288–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Brien, SM, Jacobs, JP, Pasquali, SK, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database mortality risk model: part 1-statistical methodology. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100: 1054–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, DM, Copel, JA, Kleinman, CS. Hypoplastic left heart syndrome: prenatal diagnosis, clinical profile, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 529–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fontana, RS, Edwards, JE. Congenital Cardiac Disease: A Review of 357 Cases Studied Pathologically. WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1962.Google Scholar
Hoshino, K, Ogawa, K, Hishitani, T, Kitazawa, R, Uehara, R. Hypoplastic left heart syndrome: duration of survival without surgical intervention. Am Heart J 1999; 137: 535–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, CD, Outcalt, J, Menashe, VD. Hypoplastic left heart syndrome: natural history in a geographically defined population. Pediatrics 1990; 85: 977–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samánek, M. Children with congenital heart disease: probability of natural survival. Pediatr Cardiol 1992; 13: 152–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinha, SN, Rusnak, SL, Sommers, HM, Cole, RB, Muster, AJ, Paul, MH. Hypoplastic left ventricle syndrome. Analysis of thirty autopsy cases in infants with surgical considerations. Am J Cardiol 1968; 21: 166–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, T, Di Gennaro, J, Farris, RWD, Radman, M, McMullan, DM. Racial and ethnic variation in pediatric cardiac extracorporeal life support survival. Crit Care Med 2017; 45: 670–678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, MH, Kelleman, M, Sidonio, RF, Kochilas, L, Patel, KN, Sidonio, RF. Incidence and timing of thrombosis after the norwood procedure in the single-ventricle reconstruction trial. J Am Heart Assoc 2020; 9: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mishuris, RG, Linder, JA. Electronic health records and the increasing complexity of medical practice. J Gen Intern Med 2013; 28: 1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Informed consent questionnaire for N = 37 providers that completed the survey.

Figure 1

Table 2. Assessment of centre-specific IC documents.