Page 8 of 11
SU7.1-2,SU8.1-3 | Ethics, Audit and Research — Practice Quiz
Click any question card to reveal the correct answer.
A surgeon plans an elective hernia repair for a competent adult who, after a full explanation of the risks and benefits, declines the operation and chooses to live with the hernia. The surgeon respects this refusal and does not operate. Which core ethical principle is the surgeon primarily upholding?
Correct. Respecting a competent, informed patient's right to make decisions about their own body — including the right to refuse a recommended operation — is the principle of respect for autonomy.
Autonomy gives a competent, informed patient the right to accept or refuse any intervention, even when refusal carries risk; the four principles are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice.
When a competent, informed patient refuses surgery and the surgeon honours that decision, the principle being upheld is respect for autonomy — the patient's right to self-determination over their own body.
Click to reveal answer
A trauma patient has a 30% chance of survival with an immediate laparotomy and a near-certain death without it. The surgeon proceeds with the operation, accepting the substantial operative risk because the expected benefit clearly outweighs the harm of not acting. Which ethical principle best describes the balancing the surgeon has performed?
Correct. The surgeon weighs the duty to do good (beneficence — the chance of saving life) against the duty to avoid harm (non-maleficence — operative risk). Almost every surgical decision is this risk–benefit balance.
Beneficence (acting for the patient's good) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm) are distinct duties that surgeons constantly weigh against each other in the risk–benefit calculus.
Choosing to operate because the expected benefit (chance of survival) outweighs the expected harm (operative risk) is the classic balance of beneficence against non-maleficence.
Click to reveal answer
A patient alleges negligence after a recognised, properly consented complication of an operation. The court is asked to decide whether the surgeon's actions fell below the accepted standard of care. Under the Bolam test as refined by Bolitho, how is the standard of care assessed?
Correct. Bolam sets the standard as that of a responsible body of similar practitioners; Bolitho adds that this body's opinion must itself withstand logical scrutiny and be defensible — a peer practice that is illogical does not exonerate.
Negligence requires a breach of the standard of care (Bolam) that is logically defensible (Bolitho), plus causation of harm; a recognised complication after valid consent is not automatically negligence.
The Bolam test asks whether a responsible body of similar professionals would have acted the same way; Bolitho adds the requirement that this opinion be logical and defensible. A bad outcome alone does not establish negligence.
Click to reveal answer
Before an elective cholecystectomy, the surgeon explains the nature of the operation, its material risks and benefits, and the reasonable alternatives, then obtains the competent adult patient's agreement. For this consent to be legally and ethically valid, which combination of elements is essential?
Correct. Valid informed consent requires that the patient has capacity, decides voluntarily (free of coercion), and has received adequate, material information about the procedure, its risks, benefits and alternatives.
Informed consent = capacity + voluntariness + adequate disclosure of material risks, benefits and alternatives; it is a process, not merely a signed form.
Valid informed consent rests on three pillars: the patient's capacity, voluntariness of the decision, and adequate disclosure of material information. A signature or stamp alone does not make consent valid.
Click to reveal answer
Two registrars describe their projects. Registrar A compares the unit's current surgical-site infection rate against the hospital's agreed target of <2%, implements a change, and plans to re-measure. Registrar B randomises patients to two skin-preparation agents to discover which produces fewer infections. Which statement correctly classifies these activities?
Correct. Audit compares actual practice against an existing standard and closes the loop with re-measurement (Registrar A). Research generates new knowledge about what the standard should be, typically with a hypothesis and a designed comparison (Registrar B).
Audit asks 'are we meeting the standard?' (compare to a known benchmark, then re-audit); research asks 'what should the standard be?' (generate new knowledge via study design).
Audit measures practice against an existing standard and re-audits to close the loop (Registrar A). Research seeks to discover new knowledge, often by a designed comparison such as randomisation (Registrar B).
Click to reveal answer
When ranking study designs by their strength in establishing that a surgical intervention causes a particular outcome, which design sits at the top of the hierarchy of evidence for a single primary study (i.e. excluding syntheses of studies)?
Correct. Among single primary studies, the randomised controlled trial sits highest because randomisation balances known and unknown confounders, giving the strongest basis for causal inference. (Systematic reviews/meta-analyses of RCTs rank above any single study.)
Hierarchy of evidence (ascending): case report/series → case–control → cohort → RCT → systematic review/meta-analysis of RCTs; randomisation is what lifts the RCT above observational designs.
For a single primary study, the randomised controlled trial is highest in the hierarchy of evidence because randomisation controls confounding and supports causal inference; observational designs (cohort, case–control, case series) rank lower.
Click to reveal answer