I'd agree with much of what MrPhysio says on this one.

Informed consent shouldn't be viewed as a risk management / payout reduction tool. It's about fully informing patients about all the risks involved in treatment and then allowing patients to make an informed decision based on that information.

Insurance on the other hand is intended to protect against medical 'negligence'. Practitioners doing something that they shouldn't have or not doing something that they should have (like fully informing patients about known risks). Fully informing patients does have the effect of reducing claims and payouts because it's good practice.

Naturally, there is vigorous debate about how much information is too much or not enough. Much of this debate gets resolved in a court of law. One might argue that when a court issues a large payout, they're saying that the community standard is much higher than that applied by the practitioner. If you accept the argument that courts reflect community standards, we're hearing that large payout = you need to more to better inform the client of the risks.

Another issue is that client populations don't have an homogenous level of risk adversity. I scuba dive - it's mildly risky from my perspective. I've got friends who will never dive as it's too risky for them. We each get to make that decision based on our risk perception. In the clinical setting, we shouldn't assume patients have homogenous views on risk or that practitioners 'know best'. For some people, even mild risks are too much.

www.physiotherapy.asn.au/pba