This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

I read with interest the article by Brett and Rosenberg¹ about the adequacy of informed consent for the placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tubes. I undertook a similar study in a large district general hospital (Blackburn Royal Infirmary, Blackburn, Lancashire, England), serving a population of approximately 250 000 people in northwest England. The medical notes on 63 consecutive PEG placements performed between December 1994 and August 1997 were obtained from the endoscopy unit database and reviewed. Mental competence was inferred from the medical, nursing, and therapy records. The presence in the notes of any record referring to a discussion with the patient or a relative regarding the PEG procedure was logged as "any discussion." Reference in the records, however brief, to the risks and benefits of the procedure was deemed to represent a discussion of the "specific" benefits and risks of the intervention. The consent forms were reviewed with . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Corresponding author and reprints: David Bourne, BSc, MB ChB, MRCP, MA, Specialist Registrar in Geriatric and General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Wythenshawe Hospital, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, England (e-mail: davidr.bourne@doctors.org.uk).