The inability to consent in critical care research: emergency or impairment of cognitive function?

Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness

As the clinical trial landscape for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) expands, consideration of associated ethical challenges and opportunities is of ever-increasing importance. Responsible conduct of research in the vulnerable population of persons with DoC, including those with coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS), minimally conscious state (MCS), covert cortical processing (CCP), and cognitive motor dissociation (CMD), demands proactive deliberation of unique ethical issues that may arise and the adoption of robust protections to safeguard patients, surrogates, and other key stakeholders. Here we identify and critically evaluate four central categories of ethical considerations in clinical trials involving participants with DoC: (1) autonomy, respect for persons and informed consent of individuals with liminal consciousness; (2) balancing unknown benefits and risks, especially considering the epistemological gap between behavior and consciousness that complicates ordinary ascription of subjective states; (3) disclosure to surrogates and clinical teams of investigational results pertaining to consciousness; and (4) justice considerations, including equitable access to clinical trial enrollment across communities and geographies. We outline guiding principles and research opportunities for clinicians, neuroethicists, and researchers engaged in DoC clinical trials to advance ethical study design and deployment in this complex yet crucial area of investigation.

Evaluation of a sound environment intervention in an ICU: A feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Currently, it is well known that the sound environment in intensive care units (ICU) is substandard. Therefore, there is a need of interventions investigating possible improvements. Unfortunately, there are many challenges to consider in the design and performance of clinical intervention studies including sound measurements and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

(1) explore whether it is possible to implement a full-scale intervention study in the ICU concerning sound levels and their impact on the development of ICU delirium; (2) discuss methodological challenges and solutions for the forthcoming study; (3) conduct an analysis of the presence of ICU delirium in the study group; and (4) describe the sound pattern in the intervention rooms.

METHODS

A quasi-randomized clinical trial design was chosen. The intervention consisted of a refurbished two-bed ICU patient room (experimental) with a new suspended wall-to-wall ceiling and a low frequency absorber. An identical two-bed room (control) remained unchanged.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Patients >18 years old with ICU lengths of stay (LoS) >48h. The final study group consisted of 31 patients: six from the rebuilt experimental room and 25 from the control room. Methodological problems and possible solutions were continuously identified and documented.

RESULTS

Undertaking a full-scale intervention study with continuous measurements of acoustic data in an ICU is possible. However, this feasibility study demonstrated some aspects to consider before start. The randomization process and the sound measurement procedure must be developed. Furthermore, proper education and training are needed for determining ICU delirium.

CONCLUSION

This study raises a number of points that may be helpful for future complex interventions in an ICU. For a full-scale study to be completed a continuously updated cost calculation is necessary. Furthermore, representatives from the clinic need to be involved in all stages during the project.

ICU research: the impact of invasiveness on informed consent

PURPOSE

Studies into the preferences of patients and relatives regarding informed consent for intensive care unit (ICU) research are ongoing. We investigated the impact of a study's invasiveness on the choice of who should give consent and on the modalities of informed consent.

METHODS

At ICU discharge, randomized pairs of patients and relatives were asked to answer a questionnaire about informed consent for research. One group received a vignette of a noninvasive study; the other, of an invasive study. Each study comprised two scenarios, featuring either a conscious or unconscious patient. Multivariate models assessed independent factors related to their preferences.

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients (40 %) and 125 relatives (68 %) responded. The invasiveness of a study had no impact on which people were chosen to give consent. This increased the desire to get more than one person to give consent and decreased the acceptance of deferred or two-step consent. Up to 31 % of both patients and relatives chose people other than the patient himself to give consent, even when the patient was conscious. A range of 3 to 17 % of the respondents reported that they would accept a waiving of consent. Younger respondents and individuals feeling coerced into study participation wanted to be the decision makers.

CONCLUSIONS

Study invasiveness had no impact on patients' and relatives' preferences about who should give consent. Many patients and relatives were reluctant to give consent alone. Deferred and two-step consent were less acceptable for the invasive study. Further work should investigate whether sharing the burden of informed consent with a second person facilitates participation in ICU research.

Research With Cognitively Impaired Participants

Illnesses that cause cognitive impairment are a considerable health problem in the United States. These include Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's chorea, cerebrovascular disease, psychiatric disorders, chronic alcoholism, and AIDS dementia complex. Illness associated with cognitive impairment may cause great suffering to the affected patients and their families. Research involving individuals who may be at risk for or have cognitive impairment is necessary to improve our understanding of these illnesses. For example, this may occur during efforts to develop effective therapies to treat them. However, research with participants who have cognitive impairment presents additional ethical concerns because they may be vulnerable to coercion. Therefore, nurse researchers must not only understand the principles of informed consent (i.e., autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice), but also the additional safeguards provided in the common rule to protect cognitively impaired participants in research. These safeguards include advanced informed consent, legal representative, and assent. Gaps exist in federal regulations related to adhering to these safeguards such as how to assess for decision-making capacity and variations on who can be a legal representative. The nurse researchers have potential roles as educators and advocates in research involving participants with cognitive impairment.

Research in critically ill patients: standards of informed consent

Patients in critical care lose their capability to make a judgement, and constitute a 'vulnerable population' needing special and reinforced protection. Even if the standard of informed consent is an essential way of demonstrating respect for the patient's autonomy, the usual informed-consent procedure is not as applicable as required or sufficient to warrant this ethical principle in critical care.

Emergency research: only possible if consent is waived?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Emergency research is possible only if informed consent is waived. Recent legislations have specifically addressed this issue, both in the US and in Europe.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the US, a specific regulation was enacted in 1996. Due to the added complexity, few trials have used this design. The necessity to inform the community in which a trial is supposed to take place, though feasible, is burdensome and time consuming. In the EU, directive 2001/20/CE forgot to specify particular rules for research in emergency conditions. After 2004, national legislations were supposed to implement the directive in order to enhance homogeneity within Europe, but actually showed an extreme diversity, with some countries allowing waiver of consent in emergency situations and others refusing it.

SUMMARY

Due to the active lobbying of emergency and intensive care specialists, the situation is slowly improving, with most national legislations recognizing the specificities and difficulty of emergency research.

Clinical trials in emergency situations

New guidance allows patients to be enrolled without prior consent