https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ZLN005.html The UK Supreme Court Montgomery judgement marks a decisive shift in the legal test of duty of care in the context of consent to treatment from the perspective of the clinician (as represented by Bolam rules) to that of the patient. This has important implications in the surgical field worldwide, where informed consent is critical. This paper aims to explain the ruling and how it impacts the consent process. The case and ruling are outlined and summarised as pertaining to consent and requirements for validity; a shift from the clinician's interpretation about what would be best for patients to the values of the particular patient concerned in the decision in question. A sample of recent commentaries is reviewed. Four examples illustrate some of the practical applications of the Montgomery ruling on consent and how the ruling can empower doctors and patients to make mutually beneficial shared decisions. Future consent should be obtained using a Montgomery compliant strategy in accordance with the principles of shared decision making.Objective To provide an overview of the health literacy tools that have been validated in samples of African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos with type 2 diabetes, growing segments of the US population. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, three electronic databases were searched. The following inclusion criteria were used peer-reviewed research; examined validity of a health literacy tool; and included US African American and/or Hispanic/Latino adults with type 2 diabetes. Results Sixteen studies were selected; none exclusively included African Americans while 3 exclusively included Hispanics/Latinos in the sample. Seventeen health literacy tools were identified. Among African Americans, 2 health literacy screeners, 2 diabetes knowledge, and 3 numeracy tools have been validated. Among Hispanics/Latinos, 1 health literacy screener, 1 diabetes knowledge, and 1 numeracy tool have been validated