In short
If an operation different from the consent is performed, what is read is that the patient approved a particular procedure and another procedure was written in the operation note. Consent not being taken at all is not a copy of this conflict. If an unexpected picture comes out during the operation, the widening is written separately in the note. A widening that is not written is not closed with a sentence that it was needed anyway. A bad result does not by itself show that the procedure changed, and an amount of compensation and a statistic are not written here.
The two texts stand side by side
The consent carries the name of the procedure. The operation note carries the incision that was made and the tissue that was removed. If the two names differ, there is a deviation. The difference may also be the medical name of the same procedure written in two ways. Then the abbreviation and the full name are compared. The file is asked for under the patient file. If there is no form at all, the door stands under an intervention without information. The general frame of consent stands under informed consent. The procedure not being needed at all stands under an unnecessary operation. The wrong anatomical side stands under the wrong side. This record separates the procedure that goes beyond the scope of a consent that exists.
An urgent widening is not assumed without a note
When the abdomen is opened, unexpected bleeding or involvement of another organ may be seen. This picture may require going outside the planned procedure. The ground should stand in the note with the finding of that hour. A ground written later does not stand in for the record during the procedure. The needed procedure turning into another type is not unnecessary. The type may be the same and the side reversed. The type may have changed and the side be correct too. The two may stand more than once in the same minute, and they are still not the same question.
What is separated in the consent record
The consent document, the operation minute and, if there is one, the note of widening are read together. Counsel in Ankara separates from this record that the office being in Çankaya does not change the competent authority. An amount of compensation and a statistic are not under this heading either, because the deviation is read from the name on the form and the name in the note, and a missing note is not filled with a number.
A widening that is not written does not close
The widening should stand in the note with the finding seen during the procedure. If there is no note, a sentence that it was needed anyway does not stand in for the record of that hour. The patient asks for the name of the procedure signed on the form and the incision written in the note. If the two names are the same, the deviation weakens. If the abbreviation and the full name conflict, the comparison continues. The petition does not melt no information at all and an excess of scope in a single line. The decision is not built before the two texts stand side by side. An invoice may show the fee of the procedure, but it does not by itself write which incision was made. A statistic that does not stand in the annex of the application is not treated as added later.
A bad result does not create a change of type
Even if the result of the operation is heavy, this weight does not by itself show that the procedure on the form changed. The change is read from the names of the two texts. If a note of urgent widening is standing, that note is read separately as the ground of the deviation from the planned procedure. If the note is not standing, the ground is not assumed. The wrong side is a line separate from the type changing. A missing minute is not completed with a guess, and the petition does not close this gap. The decision does not produce an amount of compensation before the form and the note conflict.
The patient places side by side the full name of the procedure signed on the form and the incision sentence in the note. If the abbreviation and the full name recount the same procedure, the deviation weakens. If the two names differ, a deviation is asked, and the difference does not come out by itself from the weight of the result. An urgent widening should stand in the note with the finding of that hour. If the note was written later, it does not stand in for the record during the procedure. If there is no sentence of a ground, it is not closed by saying it was needed anyway. The wrong side stays on a line separate from the change of type. The two may stand in the same file. They are not melted as the same question.
If there is no form at all, this record does not stand in for the heading that information was never given. If the form stands and the scope was exceeded, the place that is looked at is the two texts. The petition writes the name of the tissue that was removed from the note. It does not complete it with a name that is remembered. An invoice may show the fee line. It does not by itself create which incision was made. The form and the note should stand together in the annex of the application. A missing annex is not filled with a statistic. The decision is not built before the two texts conflict, and an amount of compensation is not written before this conflict.
Conclusion
An operation different from the consent is read from the name on the form and the name in the note. No information at all is a separate door, and an urgent widening is not assumed without a note. An amount of compensation and a statistic are not here. The frame stands on the health law page, and the basis is Law No. 1219.