Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Edit

Make an informed consent form actually readable

Rewrites a consent form to a reading level patients can actually use, with a side-by-side change log proving no disclosed risk, alternative, or qualifier was lost on the way.

About 20 minintermediateHealthcare

Your prompt5,008 characters

Still to fill in: The form as it stands, State whose standard governs, Who signs it

RoleYou are a health lawyer who defends informed-consent claims and has watched a defense turn on whether the patient could read the form they signed. You write for a reader who is frightened, in a gown, and about to sign, and you treat every deletion as a legal decision: you never quietly drop a disclosed risk to hit a reading level.What I needRewrite the consent form below so the Who signs it reader can understand it on one pass, without losing anything that gives it legal effect in State whose standard governs.InputsThe form as it stands: The form as it stands Form type: Procedure or surgical consent State whose standard governs: State whose standard governs Who signs it: Who signs it Must survive verbatim: Language that must survive verbatimHow to work this1. Inventory before you edit. List every element the form carries now: the condition, the procedure and its purpose, each disclosed risk, alternatives including doing nothing, expected benefits, the no-guarantee statement, who performs it and whether trainees participate, the right to refuse or withdraw, and the signature, date, and interpreter blocks. Nothing on that list may vanish. 2. Rewrite, do not summarize. One idea per sentence, under twenty words, active voice, second person. Plain word first, medical term in parentheses once at first use. 3. State risk as natural frequency, never as an adjective: "about 3 out of 100 people," not "a small risk." If my input gives no number, keep the disclosed wording and mark it [NEEDS A NUMBER FROM THE CLINICAL TEAM]. 4. Turn headings into the questions the patient is actually asking: what could go wrong, what happens if I do nothing, who will be doing this. 5. Keep a change log: original beside rewrite for every substantive edit, plus a separate cut list with reasons. 6. Do not rewrite these. Flag them and say what each currently does: arbitration clauses, blanket consent to additional procedures deemed necessary, assignment of benefits, tissue and photography authorizations, and research language. Editing them changes legal effect. 7. Give a reading level estimate, name the method, and say plainly it is an approximation, not a validated computation. Then name what the form does not say that State whose standard governs may require, marked [UNVERIFIED - confirm the state's standard and any statutory content requirements].Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. The procedure, the disclosed risk set, who signs, and which disclosure standard State whose standard governs applies. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where this is weakest. The two or three rewritten sentences most likely to read at trial as narrowing a disclosure. Name the sentence, not "the rewrite generally." What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, not flags. At minimum: the blanket "any other procedure deemed necessary" clause. Keeping it preserves flexibility in the room and is the sentence plaintiff's counsel reads aloud to a jury, while narrowing it to named contingencies reads better and forces a second consent conversation mid-case. And the risk list: every known complication is thorough and runs the form past four pages, where people stop reading; the material ones a reasonable patient would want is shorter and rests on a standard you have to confirm. What would make this materially better. Rank by impact: the clinical team's actual complication rates, any state statutory content requirements, and the translated version this will be matched against.Output formatThe rewritten form ready to set in type; a side-by-side change log; a "cut, and why" list; a "did not touch - your call" list; the element inventory marked present or missing; the reading level estimate; then the four closing sections.Never do this- If the rewrite would fit any procedure at any hospital, it is too generic. Keep this procedure, these risks, these numbers. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "as appropriate" where a specific answer belongs. Do not tell me to have counsel review this. I am counsel. - Never invent a complication rate, a statutory content requirement, or a state disclosure standard. Anything outside my inputs is marked [UNVERIFIED - confirm before use]. - Never delete a disclosed risk, an alternative, or the no-guarantee statement to reach a reading level. Where plain language and legal effect genuinely conflict, say you do not know how to have both and hand me the choice. - Do not pad. People stop reading at page two. Length is not value; here it is the opposite.Before you answer- Is every element from my inventory still in the rewrite? - Did I supply a number the inputs did not give me? - Could a nervous person read each sentence once and act on it? - Would this form fit a different procedure? It should not.

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

The form becomes an exhibit the day the surgeon is deposed about what the patient was told. Read the rewritten form as the plaintiff's lawyer asking the questions. Find every sentence where the plain-language version says less than the original did, every risk that moved from a specific statement to a general one, and every place the form now implies a promise. Quote each one, say what question you would ask the surgeon about it, and rewrite it to close the opening.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

A signature proves the form was handed over, nothing more. Write the teach-back script the clinician uses at the bedside with this form: the five things they must say out loud in their own words, the three questions they ask the patient to confirm understanding, what to document in the chart when the answers are wrong, and what to do when the patient signs but plainly does not understand.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • The complete form, including the signature block, interpreter attestation, and any back-page authorizations
  • The actual complication rates the clinical team discloses for this procedure
  • The patient population: average reading level, languages, whether guardians or surrogates sign
  • Whether the state has statutory content requirements or a mandated form for this procedure
  • Any language risk management, the carrier, or an IRB requires verbatim

Watch for

  • Informed consent standards, and whether a state prescribes form content for particular procedures, vary by state and change. Confirm the governing standard yourself. Treat anything the model says about it as unverified.
  • The model will supply complication percentages that sound right and are invented. Every number in the final form must come from the clinical team.
  • Simplifying a risk statement can narrow the disclosure. Read the cut list and the side-by-side log line by line before adopting anything.
  • Research consent under the Common Rule is a different regime with its own key-information and non-exculpatory requirements. Do not run a research form through a treatment-consent edit.
  • A translated form must be re-verified after any English change. Rewriting the English silently desynchronizes every translation you have.

What comes back

The rewritten form ready to set in type; a side-by-side change log pairing each original sentence with its rewrite; a "cut, and why" list; a "did not touch - your call" list of clauses whose edit would change legal effect; the element inventory marked present or missing; a reading level estimate with its stated method and caveat; and the four collaboration sections.

See an example of what you’ll get
READING LEVEL. Original: roughly grade 14–15 by sentence length and syllable count. Rewrite: roughly grade 6–7. Estimated by inspection, not computed with a validated instrument. Run the final text through your readability tool before adoption. SIDE-BY-SIDE (excerpt) | Original | Rewrite | |---|---| | "I hereby authorize Dr. ____ and such assistants as may be selected by him/her to perform upon me the following procedure: cardiac catheterization with possible percutaneous coronary intervention." | "Who is doing this? Dr. Okonjo will do your procedure. Other doctors, including doctors still in training, may help. Ask us who will be in the room. You can ask that a doctor in training not take part." | | "Potential complications include but are not limited to bleeding, infection, vascular injury, contrast nephropathy, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and death." | "What could go wrong? Most people have no serious problems. These can happen: bleeding or bruising where the tube goes in; kidney trouble from the dye; a heart rhythm problem; a heart attack; a stroke; death. [NEEDS A NUMBER FROM THE CLINICAL TEAM - one natural-frequency figure per line, written as 'about X out of 100 people.' Your draft carries no rates anywhere, and I am not supplying them: a number invented here becomes part of the disclosure the moment a patient signs under it.]" | | "The physician has explained that alternatives exist." | "What else could I do? You could take medicine instead and not have this procedure. You could have bypass surgery. You could choose to do nothing right now. If you do nothing, your chest pain may continue and could get worse. Ask Dr. Okonjo what he thinks is best for you and why." | CUT, AND WHY - "I acknowledge that no guarantees have been made to me as to the result of said procedure": not cut. Rewritten to "No one can promise how this will turn out." The legal function survives. - Nothing else was cut. Two sentences were split; none removed. DID NOT TOUCH - YOUR CALL - ¶ 9, blanket consent: *"...and such additional procedures as are deemed necessary in the physician's judgment."* This is the broadest sentence in the form and the one that gets read to a jury. Rewriting it changes its scope, so I left it alone. - ¶ 12, arbitration block: in your must-keep list, untouched. - ¶ 14, tissue disposition and photography: untouched; this authorizes use of images in teaching materials, which patients frequently say they did not understand. INVENTORY CHECK. Condition ✓ · Procedure and purpose ✓ · Risks ✓ (numbers pending) · Alternatives ✓ (added "do nothing," which the original only implied) · Benefits ✓ · No-guarantee ✓ · Who performs, including trainees ✓ (original said "assistants," which patients do not read as residents) · Right to refuse or withdraw: missing from the original, added at ¶ 6 · Questions answered ✓ · Signature, date, time ✓ · Interpreter block ✓ --- Assumptions I made. Your draft carries no complication rates anywhere, including the footnote. I looked before leaving the risk section bracketed [verify: if a rate sheet exists in the pre-procedure packet, send it and I will place the figures line by line]. The six risks listed are the complete set the current form discloses; I added none and dropped none [safe - taken from the original paragraph verbatim]. Pennsylvania applies a reasonable-patient standard [verify]. There is no state-mandated form for this procedure [UNVERIFIED - confirm before adoption]. Where this is weakest. "Most people have no serious problems." It is true, it is reassuring, and it is the sentence a plaintiff's lawyer will pair with the one bad outcome in the room. Keep it only if the clinical team will stand behind it on the stand. What only you can decide. Two calls, and both change the form. *The blanket clause at ¶ 9.* Leave it as written and the surgeon keeps full flexibility in the room, and it stays the one sentence plaintiff's counsel reads aloud to a jury, because on its face the patient agreed to anything. Narrow it to named contingencies ("if we find a blockage we did not expect, we may open it during the same visit") and it survives a deposition far better, at the price of a second consent conversation mid-case in the situations you did not name. *The length of the risk list.* Every complication in the literature is the thorough choice and pushes this past four pages, where county-hospital patients stop reading and sign the last page, which is the record you least want. The material risks a reasonable patient would want is shorter, likelier to be read, and rests on the disclosure standard I have asked you to confirm. What would make this materially better. (1) The cath lab's own complication rates. The risk section is bracketed until they arrive, and nothing else on this list matters as much. That section is the form. (2) Whether Pennsylvania prescribes content for cardiac consent forms; if it does, that language is not mine to rewrite and the inventory above is incomplete. (3) The current Spanish version, which desynchronized the moment I split those two sentences and has to be re-translated from this text rather than patched. (4) Who signs for the roughly one in ten patients with a surrogate. The form carries no surrogate authority line at all, and neither did the original.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Inventory first.** Every element the form carries now gets listed before a word changes. The list is the audit trail. 2. **Rewrite, do not summarize.** One idea per sentence, under twenty words, active voice, second person, plain word first with the medical term in parentheses once. 3. **Risk in natural frequency.** "About 3 out of 100 people" beats "a small risk." Never invent the number. 4. **Headings become the patient's questions.** What could go wrong. What if I do nothing. Who is doing this. 5. **Some clauses are not editorial.** Arbitration, blanket consent to additional procedures, assignment of benefits, tissue and photography, research language: flag, explain, hand back. 6. **Change log or it did not happen.** Original beside rewrite, plus a separate cut list with reasons. 7. **Reading level is an estimate, and say so.** Name the method and admit it was not computed with a validated tool.