The ones a practice actually asks.

A consent form records that someone signed something. A record of understanding says what they were shown, in which version and language, what they answered (including the answers that were wrong) and what was explained again.

ConsentIQ produces the second thing. It supports the consent discussion and never replaces it.

Yes. Nothing here removes a minute of the conversation at the chair. It changes what is written down about it, and it lets you see which point the patient got wrong before you start talking rather than afterwards.

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 changed how the law judges whether a patient was told enough before treatment. It used to be answered by asking what a responsible body of doctors would have disclosed.

Now the question is about the patient rather than the profession: were they told about the risks a reasonable person in their position would think significant, and about anything this particular patient would. What they do for a living, what they told you they were worried about, and anything in their history that changes the weight of a risk are all part of it. Lip numbness is a footnote for most people and the whole decision for someone who plays a wind instrument.

ConsentIQ’s part is narrow: the clinician marks what they judge material (important) to this patient and writes why, that risk is then always tested, and both are sealed into the record (locked so nobody can change it). Whether the discussion itself was adequate is a clinical judgement and stays one.

They watch that part of the video again, then answer a new question about it. Both attempts stay in the record. If it is still wrong, the person treating them is told. Treatment is not stopped.

A refusal is recorded as a refusal, with its reason. Someone who cannot follow the video or does not want to has not done anything wrong. Where it is truly unclear whether they can decide for themselves (their capacity), that is a different route rather than a worse score.

Five routes, from the patient’s age and the clinician’s assessment. Under 13, someone with parental responsibility completes it; 13 to 15, Gillick competence (a child mature enough to decide for themselves) decides who answers; 16 and over, an adult for these purposes.

Where it is unclear whether an adult can decide, the Mental Capacity Act two-stage test (the legal check of whether they can decide) is recorded with the help that was offered. Where they cannot decide, what is recorded is a best-interests decision (made for them, in their interest) naming who was asked, because that is what it is.

Each sealed record stores a tamper check: a code worked out from its own contents and from the record before it. Change a record and its code no longer matches. Change both and the next record no longer links up. Remove one and there is a gap.

What it does not prove: someone able to rewrite every later record too could make the checks pass again. So a change shows up (tamper-evident), but that is not the same as tamper-proof (impossible to change).

English, Urdu, Punjabi, Polish, Romanian, Bengali, Portuguese (Brazil).

Each is a translation of your own form, so the record is the same whichever was used. A clinician who reads the language approves the translation first, and no patient can start in that language until they have.

Staff at the practice it belongs to, and only what their role allows. A manager in a group never sees another practice’s patients; a group owner sees across sites. That separation is built into the database itself, so a screen that forgets to check the practice shows nothing.

Not emptied. A request to delete blanks out the personal details (redaction), with the reason logged. The outline of the record and its tamper check stay. Records can only ever be added, never removed, which is why a change can be spotted at all. That trade-off belongs in a practice’s data protection impact assessment (the privacy risk check the law asks for).

Not yet, and it is the largest outstanding item before any real patient is involved. Unchecked content cannot be shown to a patient, but that rule cannot judge whether checked content is correct. The compliance page lists the rest.

Nothing. ConsentIQ is free.