Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS
October 3, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Electronic versus paper surgical consent in NHS plastic surgery: A prospective evaluation of the Concentric platform at a tertiary centre.
Ayyappan K, Saha A, Daneshi K, Kangesu P, Bhanot K, Tucker S.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
An electronic consent platform documented risks more completely and faster than paper consent in a small UK plastic surgery study.
What was studied
Prospective observational study in two NHS plastic surgery clinics (November 2024 to June 2025) comparing paper consent with the Concentric eConsent platform for minor procedures, assessing risk omissions, time and patient experience.
Key findings
- 49 consent episodes were included
- eConsent had no risk documentation errors, whereas paper consent had a 32% risk-omission rate
- Completion time fell by 42.56% (179.2 vs 312 s); patient experience was described as comparable, but the statistics are truncated
Clinical relevance
Supports eConsent as a way to align with Montgomery-style disclosure requirements and save clinic time.
Who should care
Limitations
Small, non-randomized, phased rollout with minor procedures only; the abstract is truncated so p-values and Likert results are not visible, and it measures documentation rather than patient understanding.
eConsent improved completeness and efficiency in this early evaluation.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
Background
The Montgomery ruling mandates patient-specific disclosure of material risks in surgical consent, yet paper-based documentation remains common and is prone to omission and inefficiency. Electronic consent (eConsent) platforms may address these limitations, but their real-world impact in UK surgical practice remains understudied.
Methods
A prospective observational study was conducted in two NHS plastic surgery clinics from November 2024 to June 2025. Patients aged ≥16 years undergoing minor procedures were recruited as they attended clinic. Consent was obtained using paper forms or, following phased introduction, the Concentric eConsent platform. Consent duration was recorded, and documentation was assessed against a standardised procedural risk framework to determine omission rates. Patient experience was measured using a five-point Likert scale.
Results
Forty-nine consent episodes were included. eConsent had no risk documentation errors, while paper consent demonstrated a 32% risk-omission rate, most commonly swelling or fluid accumulation. Completion time also reduced by 42.56% when utilising eConsent (179.2 vs. 312 s, p<0.0001). Patient satisfaction was high and comparable between consent methods (4.82 vs 5.0 out of 5, p=0.0622).
Conclusions
eConsent improves the completeness and efficiency of surgical consent with comparable patient experience, supporting closer alignment with contemporary legal standards.
DOI
10.1016/j.bjps.2026.09.049
PMID
42858550
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed