Digitized and structured informed patient consent before contrast-enhanced computed tomography: feasibility and benefits in clinical routine

Background To evaluate the feasibility and benefits of digitized informed patient consent (D-IPC) for contrast-enhanced CT and compare digitized documentation with paper-based, conventional patient records (C-PR). Methods We offered D-IPC to 2016 patients scheduled for a CT. We assessed patient history (e.g., CT examinations, malignant or cardiovascular diseases) and contraindications (red flags) for a CT (e.g., thyroid hyperfunction, allergies) using a tablet device. We evaluated the success rate of D-IPC and compared patient age between the subgroups of patients who were able or unable to complete D-IPC. We analyzed the prevalence of marked questions and red flags (RF). RF were compared with the documentation from C-PR. We estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for paperless workflow and provide a cost–benefit analysis. Results Overall, 84.4% of patients completed D-IPC. They were younger (median 61 years) than unsuccessful patients (65 years; p < 0.001). Patients who marked questions (21.7%) were older than patients without inquiries (median 63.9 vs 59.5 years; p < 0.001). The most prevalent RF was thyroid disease (23.8%). RF were considered critical for contrast-agent injection in 13.7%, requiring personalized preparation. The detection rate for RF documented with D-IPC was higher than for C-PR ( n = 385 vs. 43). GHG emissions for tablet production are 80–90 times higher than for paper production. The estimated costs were slightly higher for D-IPC (+ 8.7%). Conclusion D-IPC is feasible, but patient age is a relevant factor. Marked questions and RF help personalize IPC. The availability of patient history by D-IPC was superior compared to C-PR.