Patients’ preferences for enrolment into critical-care trials

Trials using deferred consent in the emergency setting: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of stakeholders' attitudes

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute conditions often lack the capacity to provide informed consent, and narrow therapeutic windows mean there is no time to seek consent from surrogates prior to treatment being commenced. One method to enable the inclusion of this study population in emergency research is through recruitment without prior consent, often known as 'deferred consent'. However, empirical studies have shown a large disparity in stakeholders' opinions regarding this enrolment method. This systematic review aimed to understand different stakeholder groups' attitudes to deferred consent, particularly in relation to the context in which deferred consent might occur.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE, EMCare, PsychINFO, Scopus, and HMIC were searched from 1996 to January 2021. Eligible studies focussed on deferred consent processes for adults only, in the English language, and reported empirical primary research. Studies of all designs were included. Relevant data were extracted and thematically coded using a narrative approach to 'tell a story' of the findings.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority examined patient views (n = 19). Data from the members of the public (n = 5) and health care professionals (n =5) were also reported. Four overarching themes were identified: level of acceptability of deferred consent, research-related factors influencing acceptability, personal characteristics influencing views on deferred consent, and data use after refusal of consent or participant death.

CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that the use of deferred consent would be most acceptable to stakeholders during low-risk emergency research with a narrow therapeutic window and where there is potential for patients to benefit from their inclusion. While the use of narrative synthesis allowed assessment of the included studies, heterogeneous outcome measures meant that variations in study results could not be reliably attributed to the different trial characteristics. Future research should aim to develop guidance for research ethics committees when reviewing trials using deferred consent in emergency research and investigate more fully the views of healthcare professionals which to date have been explored less than patients and members of the public. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020223623.

Surrogate Informed Consent: A Qualitative Analysis of Surrogate Decision Makers' Perspectives

Rationale: Clinical critical care research often hinges on surrogate informed consent, as patients commonly lack decision-making capacity because of their acute illness. The surrogate informed consent process has been identified as having flaws and needing improvement. A better understanding of surrogates' perspectives is required to understand and address these shortcomings and thereby improve this process. Objectives: To explore the perspectives of surrogate decision makers of critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients about being approached about having their loved one participate in hypothetical research studies. Methods: We performed semistructured qualitative interviews of surrogate decision makers of critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients, exploring their decisional needs surrounding participation in research. These interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis of transcripts was performed with an iterative group framework using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. Results: A sample of 21 surrogate decision makers were interviewed. Thematic saturation was achieved by the consensus of the investigators. We identified trust as a unifying domain for the themes that emerged through the analytic process. Embedded within the domain of trust, two central themes became apparent: knowledge-based trust and context-based trust. Knowledge-based trust includes subthemes of logistics, accountability, and mutual respect, whereas context-based trust includes trust in the individual clinicians and trust in the hospital system. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the nuanced layers of trust central to the surrogate informed consent process. To enhance the surrogate informed consent process for participation in critical care research studies, it is crucial that researchers recognize the inherent importance of trust to ensure an effective informed consent process.

Exploring the inclusion of under-served groups in trials methodology research: an example from ethnic minority populations' views on deferred consent

BACKGROUND

Deferred consent is used to recruit patients in emergency research, when informed consent cannot be obtained prior to enrolment. This model of consent allows studies to recruit larger numbers of participants, especially where a surrogate-decision maker may be unavailable to provide consent. Whilst deferred consent offers the potential to promote trial diversity by including under-served groups, it is ethically complex and views about its use amongst these populations require further exploration. The aim of this article is to build upon recent initiatives to improve inclusivity in trials, such as the NIHR INCLUDE project, and consider whether trials methodology research is inclusive, focusing on ethnic minority populations' attitudes towards the use of deferred consent.

MAIN TEXT

Findings from the literature suggest that research regarding attitudes toward recruitment methods like deferred consent largely fail to adequately represent ethnic minorities. Many studies fail to report the composition of patient samples or conduct analyses on any differences between specific patient groups. In those that do, the categorisation of ethnic groups is ambiguous. Frequently diversely different groups are considered as more homogenous than they are. Whilst deferred consent is deemed generally acceptable, analysis of patient sub-groups shows that this attitude is not universal. Those from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds reported higher levels of unacceptability, which was impacted by previous first or second-hand experience of its use and historical mistrust in research. However, whilst deferred consent was found to increase the numbers of black participants enrolled in some trials, their over-enrolment in other trials may raise further concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusivity in clinical trials is important, as highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. To improve this, we must ensure that methodological studies such as those exploring attitudes to research are inclusive. More effort is needed to understand the views of under-served groups, such as ethnic minorities, toward research in order to improve participation in clinical trials. Our findings echo those from the INCLUDE project, in that better reporting is needed and increasing the confidence of ethnic minority groups in research requires improving representation throughout the research process. This will involve diversifying research teams and ethics committees.

Effectiveness of participant recruitment strategies for critical care trials: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Critical care trials are limited by problems with participant recruitment, and little is known about the most effective ways to enhance trial participation. Despite clinical research improving in the past decades within intensive care, participant recruitment remains a challenge. Not all eligible patients are identified, and opportunities for enrolment into clinical trials are often missed. Interventions to facilitate recruitment need to be identified to improve trial conduct in the critical care environment. Therefore, we aimed to establish the effectiveness of recruitment strategies in critical care trials in order to inform future research practice.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for English language papers from inception to February 2020. The objectives were to: (1) establish the effectiveness of recruitment strategies and (2) recommend how effective recruitment strategies can inform research practice. Two reviewers independently assessed papers for inclusion and critically appraised the quality of the studies. Discrepancies were discussed within the research team. Relevant data were extracted and thematically coded into five overarching themes using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019160519).

RESULTS

The search resulted in 2509 initially identified articles, with 15 that met the inclusion criteria. Articles reported a combination of quantitative, mixed methods and qualitative studies and a range of low-, moderate- and high-quality studies. Although, in-keeping with narrative synthesis approaches, none were excluded based on methodological quality. Five themes were identified relating to: patient eligibility identification, who provides information and seeks consent, resource limitations, research culture or environment and the consent model used. The relative success of recruitment strategies was dependent upon the experience and availability of the staff involved in the approach, trial design, the application of the strategy to the specific intensive care environment, the acceptability of the recruitment and consent models used, and the efficiency of the recruitment procedures. Opportunities for consent were missed in a proportion of eligible patients in most studies, suggesting that clinicians may avoid recruiting more complex patients or in more complex situations and that further development of strategies is needed.

CONCLUSION

More effective recruitment strategies are required to enhance recruitment and the representativeness of the patient sample obtained in critical care trials, in order to expand the evidence base for treatments in this field. Greater focus is needed on assessing the performance of different recruitment strategies within different types of studies and critical care research environments. Future research should explore key stakeholders' experiences of, and attitudes towards, recruitment and establish the most important and feasible modifiable barriers to recruitment.

Advances and challenges in conducting ethical trials involving populations lacking capacity to consent: A decade in review

Informed consent is an essential requirement prior to clinical trial participation, however some 'vulnerable' groups, such as people with cognitive impairments and those in medical emergency situations, may lack decisional capacity to consent. This raises ethical and practical challenges when designing and conducting clinical trials involving these populations, who are frequently excluded as a result. Despite recent advances in improving informed consent processes, there has been far less attention paid to the enrolment of adults lacking capacity. Exclusion criteria are an important determinant of the external validity of clinical trial results. The exclusion of these populations, and consent-based recruitment biases which arise from the challenges of identifying and involving surrogate decision-makers, leads to trials which are not representative of the clinical population. This article discusses the involvement of adults who lack decisional capacity to consent in clinical trials and presents the advances over the previous decade and the remaining ethical challenges for the inclusion of this under-represented population in research.

Ethical understandings of proxy decision making for research involving adults lacking capacity: A systematic review (framework synthesis) of empirical research

BACKGROUND

Research involving adults lacking mental capacity relies on the involvement of a proxy or surrogate, although this raises a number of ethical concerns. Empirical studies have examined attitudes towards proxy decision-making, proxies' authority as decision-makers, decision accuracy, and other relevant factors. However, a comprehensive evidence-based account of proxy decision-making is lacking. This systematic review provides a synthesis of the empirical data reporting the ethical issues surrounding decisions made by research proxies, and the development of a conceptual framework of proxy decision-making for research.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched using a combination of search terms, and empirical data from eligible studies were retrieved. The review followed the framework synthesis approach to refine and develop a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were included in the review. Two dimensions of proxy decision-making emerged. The ethical framing criteria of decision-making used by proxies: use of a substituted judgement, use of a best interests approach, combination of substituted judgement and best interests, and 'something else', and the active elements of proxy decision-making: 'knowing the person', patient-proxy relationship, accuracy of the decision, and balancing risks, benefits and burdens, and attitudes towards proxy decision-making. Interactions between the framing criteria and the elements of decision-making are complex and contextually-situated.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this systematic review challenge the accepted reductionist account of proxy decision-making. Decision-making by research proxies is highly contextualized and multifactorial in nature. The choice of proxy and the relational features of decision-making play a fundamental role: both in providing the proxy's authority as decision-maker, and guiding the decision-making process. The conceptual framework describes the relationship between the framing criteria used by the proxy, and the active elements of decision-making. Further work to develop, and empirically test the proposed framework is needed.

Improving Research Enrollment of Severe Burn Patients

Enrolling severely burn injured patients into prospective research studies poses specific challenges to investigators. The authors describe their experience of recruiting adults with ≥20% TBSA burns or inhalation injury admitted to a single academic burn unit into observational research with minimally invasive specimen collection. The authors outline iterative changes that they made to their recruitment processes in response to perceived weaknesses leading to delays in enrollment. The primary outcome was the change in days to consent for enrolled patients or cessation of recruitment for nonenrolled patients before and after the interventional modifications. The authors assessed change in overall enrollment as a secondary outcome. Study enrollment was approximately 70% in both 4-month study periods before and after the intervention. Following the intervention, time to consent by surrogate decision maker decreased from a median of 26.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 14-41) to 3 days (IQR 3-6) (P = .004). Time to initial consent by patient changed from a median of 15 days (IQR 2-30) to 3 days (IQR 2-6) (P = .27). Time to decline for nonenrolled patients decreased from a median of 12 days (IQR 6.5-27) to 1.5 days (IQR 1-3.5) (P = .026). Both the findings of the study and a brief literature review suggest that careful design of the recruitment protocol, increased experience of the study team, and broad time windows for both approach and enrollment improve the efficiency of recruiting critically injured burn patients into research.

The Experience of Surrogate Decision Makers on Being Approached for Consent for Patient Participation in Research. A Multicenter Study

RATIONALE

Recruitment in critical care research differs from other contexts in important ways: patients lack decision-making capacity, uncertainty exists regarding patient prognosis, and critical illnesses are often associated with appreciable morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to describe the experiences of surrogate decision makers (SDMs) in being approached for consent for critically ill patients to participate in research.

METHODS

A multicenter, qualitative study involving semistructured interviews with 26 SDMs, who provided or declined surrogate consent for research participation, at 5 Canadian centers nested within a multicenter observational study of research recruitment practices. Transcripts were reviewed by three qualitative researchers, and data were analyzed using grounded theory and a narrative critical analysis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

SDMs were guided by an overarching desire for the patient to live. Surrogate research decision-making involved three sequential stages: (1) being approached; (2) reflecting on participation; and (3) making a decision. In stage 1, SDMs identified factors (their expectations, how they were approached, the attributes of the person approaching, and study risks and benefits) that characterized their consent encounter and affirmed a preference to be approached in person. If SDMs perceived the risk of participation to be too high or felt patients may not benefit from participation, they did not contemplate further. In stage 2, SDMs who knew the patient's wishes or had a deeper understanding of research prioritized the patient's wishes and the perceived benefits of participation. Without this information, SDMs prioritized obtaining more and better care for the patient, considered what was in their mutual best interests, and valued healthcare professional's knowledge. Trust in healthcare professionals was essential to proceeding further. In stage 3, SDMs considered six factors in rendering decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

SDMs engaged in three sequential stages and considered six factors in making surrogate decisions for research participation. Surrogates' assessments of the risks and benefits of participation and their trust in healthcare professionals were critical factors in research decision-making. By conceptualizing surrogate decision-making for research in stages, future research can develop and test procedures to enhance the surrogate research decision-making process.

Ethical challenges involved in obtaining consent for research from patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit

Clinical research remains a vital contributor to medical knowledge, and is an established and integral part of the practice of medicine worldwide. Respect for patient autonomy and ethical principles dictate that informed consent must be obtained from subjects before they can be enrolled into clinical research, yet these conditions may be difficult to apply in real practice in the intensive care unit (ICU). A number of factors serve to complexify the consent process in critically ill patients, notably decisional incapacity of the patient due to illness or sedation. Obtaining consent for research from a designated proxy or family member, commonly termed a "surrogate decision maker" (SDM) may be difficult, since SDMs dealing with the emotional, psychological and logistic impact of a sudden hospitalisation of their loved-one are not always receptive to the idea of research or emotionally equipped to reflect rationally on the opportunities being proposed to them. In addition, time constraints and workload pressures on the attending physician may render consent opportunities unfeasible, and the resulting loss of eligible patients could represent a bias in clinical trials, or limit the generalizability of their results. Alternative procedures such as deferred or waived consent have been used in the past and may be suitable alternatives in certain conditions, provided appropriate approval from institutional review boards (IRBs) can be obtained, in accordance with existing legislation. Some of the main questions inherent to the conduct of clinical research in critically ill patients are discussed in this review.

An Alternative Consent Process for Minimal Risk Research in the ICU

OBJECTIVES

Seeking consent for minimal risk research in the ICU poses challenges, especially when the research is time-sensitive. Our aim was to determine the extent to which ICU patients or surrogates support a deferred consent process for a minimal risk study without the potential for direct benefit.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Five ICUs within a tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

Newly admitted ICU patients 18 years old or older.

INTERVENTIONS

We administered an eight-item verbal survey to patients or surrogates approached for consent to participate in a minimal risk, ICU-based study. The parent study involved noninvasive collection of biosamples and clinical data at the time of ICU admission and again 3 days later. If patients had capacity at the time of ICU admission, or if a surrogate was readily available, consent was sought prior to initial sample collection; otherwise, a waiver of consent was granted, and deferred consent was sought 3 days later. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

One hundred fifty-seven individuals were approached for consent to participate in the parent study; none objected to the consent process. One hundred thirty-five of 157 (86%) competed the survey, including 94 who consented to the parent study and 41 who declined. Forty-four of 60 individuals (73%) approached for deferred consent responded positively to the question "Did we make the right choice in waiting until now to ask your consent?" three of 60 (5%) responded negatively, and 13 of 60 (22%) made a neutral or unrelated response. The most common reason given for endorsing the deferred consent process was the stress of the early ICU experience 25 of 44 (61%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients and surrogates accept a deferred consent process for minimal risk research in the ICU. For appropriate ICU-based research, investigators and Institutional Review Boards should consider a deferred consent process if the subject lacks capacity and an appropriate surrogate is not readily available.

Enrollment Challenges in Critical Care Nursing Research

BACKGROUND

Enrollment challenges for critical care research are common. Contributing factors include short enrollment windows, the crisis nature of critical illness, lack of research staff, unavailable legal proxy, family dynamics, and language barriers.

OBJECTIVE

To describe enrollment statistics for an ongoing critical care nursing trial, barriers to recruitment, and strategies to enhance enrollment.

METHODS

Two years' worth of recruitment and enrollment data from an oral care intervention trial in critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation at 1 hospital were analyzed. Recruitment logs include number of patients screened, eligible, enrolled, and declined and patients' sex, race, and ethnicity.

RESULTS

Target enrollment (15.5 patients per month) was based on experience and historical data. Strategies implemented to promote enrollment included providing study personnel at least 18 hours per day for 7 days per week, regular rounds, communication with direct care staff, and Spanish consent processes. In 2 years, 6963 patients were screened; 1551 (22%) were eligible. Consent was sought from 366 (24% of eligible patients). Enrollment averaged 13.3 patients per month (86% of projected target). The main factor impeding enrollment was unavailability of a legal proxy to provide consent (88%). The refusal rates of white (11%), black (13%), and Hispanic (16%) patients did not differ significantly. However, those classified as Asian or as more than 1 race declined significantly more often (35%) than did white or black patients (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Unavailability of a legal proxy within a short enrollment window was the major challenge to enrollment. Various factors influenced consent decisions. Clinical study design requires more conservative estimates.

The Deferred Consent Model in a Prospective Observational Study Evaluating Myocardial Injury in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is a hallmark of ethical clinical research. An inherent challenge in critical care research is obtaining consent when patients lack decision-making capacity. One solution is deferred consent, which is often used for studies that are low risk or involve emergency interventions. Our objective was to describe a deferred consent model in a low-risk critical care study.

METHODS

Prognostic Value of Elevated Troponins in Critical Illness Study was a prospective, pilot observational study of critically ill patients in 3 intensive care units, involving serial electrocardiograms and cardiac biomarkers. Newly admitted patients were enrolled over 1 month. When possible, informed consent was obtained a priori from the patient or substitute decision maker (SDM); otherwise, consent was deferred until the patient regained consent capacity or until their SDM was available. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between patient's sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, study center, person providing consent (patient vs SDM), method of consent (telephone vs in person), and the provision or not of informed consent.

RESULTS

The overall consent rate was 80.1% (213 of 266 persons approached). Of the 53 persons declining consent, 37 (69.8%) agreed to the use of data collected up until that point. Over half of all consent encounters were with patients rather than SDMs. Median interval delay between enrollment and the consent encounter was 1 day. On multivariate analysis, the only variable associated with consent was male sex of the patient (odds ratio for males 2.59, confidence interval: 1.19-5.63).

CONCLUSION

Deferred consent facilitates implementation of time-sensitive research protocols until a consent encounter is possible. As a feasible alternative to exclusive a priori consent, the deferred consent model can be useful in low-risk studies in critically ill patients.

Exploring the experiences of substitute decision-makers with an exception to consent in a paediatric resuscitation randomised controlled trial: study protocol for a qualitative research study

INTRODUCTION

Prospective informed consent is required for most research involving human participants; however, this is impracticable under some circumstances. The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) outlines the requirements for research involving human participants in Canada. The need for an exception to consent (deferred consent) is recognised and endorsed in the TCPS for research in individual medical emergencies; however, little is known about substitute decision-maker (SDM) experiences. A paediatric resuscitation trial (SQUEEZE) (NCT01973907) using an exception to consent process began enrolling at McMaster Children's Hospital in January 2014. This qualitative research study aims to generate new knowledge on SDM experiences with the exception to consent process as implemented in a randomised controlled trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The SDMs of children enrolled into the SQUEEZE pilot trial will be the sampling frame from which ethics study participants will be derived.

DESIGN

Qualitative research study involving individual interviews and grounded theory methodology.

PARTICIPANTS

SDMs for children enrolled into the SQUEEZE pilot trial.

SAMPLE SIZE

Up to 25 SDMs. Qualitative methodology: SDMs will be invited to participate in the qualitative ethics study. Interviews with consenting SDMs will be conducted in person or by telephone, taped and professionally transcribed. Participants will be encouraged to elaborate on their experience of being asked to consent after the fact and how this process occurred.

ANALYSIS

Data gathering and analysis will be undertaken simultaneously. The investigators will collaborate in developing the coding scheme, and data will be coded using NVivo. Emerging themes will be identified.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research represents a rare opportunity to interview parents/guardians of critically ill children enrolled into a resuscitation trial without their knowledge or prior consent. Findings will inform implementation of the exception to consent process in the planned definitive SQUEEZE trial and support development of evidence-based ethics guidelines.

Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness

Background

A rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research.

Methods

We conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis.

Results

We screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented.

Conclusions

Third-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes.

PROSPERO protocol registration number

CRD42014014000

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1110-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Research without Informed Patient Consent in Incompetent Patients

Most patients needing intensive care cannot give informed consent to participation in research. This includes the most acutely and severely ill, with the highest mortality and morbidity where research has the greatest potential to improve patient outcomes. In these circumstances consent is usually sought from a substitute decision maker, but while survivors of intensive care believe substitute decision makers will look after their interests, evidence suggests substitute decision makers are poorly equipped for this task. Various models have been suggested for research without patient informed consent when intervention is urgent and cannot wait until first person consent is possible, including a waiver of consent if conditions are met. A nationally consistent model is proposed for Australia with a robust process for initial waiver of consent followed by first person consent to further research-related procedures or ongoing follow-up when this can be competently provided.

Deferred consent in a minimal-risk study involving critically ill subarachnoid hemorrhage patients

INTRODUCTION

Alterations from first-party and surrogate decision-maker consent can enhance the feasibility of research involving critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of a deferred-consent model to enable participation of critically ill patients in a minimal-risk biomarker study.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted in which serum biomarker samples were collected three times daily over the first 14 days following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Sample collection was initiated on intensive care unit admission and consent was obtained when research personnel could approach the patient or the patient's surrogate decision maker.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were eligible for the study, of whom only five were capable of providing informed consent. Full consent was obtained for 21 (78%) patients through self- (n=4) and surrogate (n=17) consent. Partial consent or refusal (only permitting the collection of blood samples as a part of routine care or use of data) occurred in three patients. Among the 22 consents sought from surrogates, three (11%) refused participation. The refusals included the sickest patients in the cohort. Once consent was provided, no patient or surrogate withdrew consent before study completion.

DISCUSSION

Use of a deferred consent model enabled participation of critically ill patients in a minimal-risk biomarker study with no withdrawals.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research and enhanced awareness of the potential utility of hybrid models, including deferred consent in addition to patient or surrogate consent, in the conduct of low-risk and minimally interventional time-sensitive studies of critically ill patients are required.

Enhancing the informed consent process for critical care research: strategies from a thromboprophylaxis trial

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients lack capacity for decisions about research participation. Consent to enrol these patients in studies is typically obtained from substitute decision-makers.

OBJECTIVE

To present strategies that may optimise the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers for participation of critically ill patients in trials. We use examples from a randomised trial of heparin thromboprophylaxis in the intensive care unit (PROTECT, clinicaltrials.gov NCT00182143).

METHODS

3764 patients were randomised, with an informed consent rate of 82%; 90% of consents were obtained from substitute decision-makers. North American PROTECT research coordinators attended three meetings to discuss enrolment: (1) Trial start-up (January 2006); (2) Near trial closure (January 2010); and (3) Post-publication (April 2011). Data were derived from slide presentations, field notes from break-out groups and plenary discussions, then analysed inductively.

RESULTS

We derived three phases for the informed consent process: (1) Preparation for the Consent Encounter; (2) The Consent Encounter; and (3) Follow-up to the Consent Encounter. Specific strategies emerged for each phase: Phase 1 (four strategies); Phase 2 (six strategies); and Phase 3 (three strategies).

CONCLUSION

We identified 13 strategies that may improve the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers and be generalisable to other settings and studies.

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.

An ethical analysis of proxy and waiver of consent in critical care research

It is a central principle in medical ethics that vulnerable patients are entitled to a degree of protection that reflects their vulnerability. In critical care research, this protection is often established by means of so-called proxy consent. Proxy consent for research participation constitutes a substituted judgement by a close relative or friend, based on knowledge of patient's values, preferences, and view of life. For the consent to be genuine, the proxy must be informed of and understand three fundamental aspects of research practice: (1) that participation is voluntary and the consent can be withdrawn at any time; (2) that the research is designed to benefit future patients and society as a whole, and not the individual study participant; and (3) that participation involves an incremental non-therapeutic risk. If this is not fulfilled because the research is to be conducted under circumstances where the proxy is unavailable, adequate protection of the patient must be ensured by other means. Thus, the research must be designed specifically to benefit critically ill patients, and the incremental non-therapeutic risk must only comprise a minimal risk.

Research participants' opinions of delayed consent for a randomised controlled trial of glucose control in intensive care

PURPOSE

Critically ill patients are often unable to give informed consent to participate in clinical research. A process of delayed consent, enrolling patients into clinical trials and obtaining consent as soon as practical from either the participant or their substitute decision maker, has sometimes been used. The objective of this study was to determine the opinion of participants, previously enrolled in the NICE-SUGAR study, of the delayed consent process.

METHODS

This observational study was conducted from 2009 to 2010 in the ICU of a tertiary referral hospital in Australia. Participants who were enrolled in the NICE-SUGAR study with delayed consent who survived, were cognitively intact, and proficient in English were posted a questionnaire regarding their opinion of the delayed consent process. The questionnaire was returned by post, fax, email, or completed during a telephone interview.

RESULTS

Of 298 eligible participants, 210 responded, with an overall response rate of 79 %. Delayed consent to participate in the NICE-SUGAR study was obtained from participants (57/210; 27.1 %) or the substitute decision maker (152/210; 72.4 %). Most respondents (195/204; 95.6 %) would have consented to participate in the NICE-SUGAR study if asked before enrolment; most (163/198; 82.3 %) ranked first "the person who consented on their behalf for the NICE Study" as most preferred to make decisions, should they be unable; and most (177/202; 87.6 %) agreed with the decision made by their relative.

CONCLUSION

Delayed consent to participate in a clinical trial that includes critically ill patients is acceptable from research participant's perspectives.

Rates and determinants of informed consent: a case study of an international thromboprophylaxis trial

BACKGROUND

Successful completion of randomized trials depends upon efficiently and ethically screening patients and obtaining informed consent. Awareness of modifiable barriers to obtaining consent may inform ongoing and future trials.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to describe and examine determinants of consent rates in an international heparin thromboprophylaxis trial (Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial, clinicaltrials.gov NCT00182143).

DESIGN

Throughout the 4-year trial, research personnel approached eligible critically ill patients or their substitute decision makers for informed consent. Whether consent was obtained or declined was documented daily.

SETTING

The trial was conducted in 67 centers in 6 countries.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 3764 patients were randomized. The overall consent rate was 82.2% (range, 50%-100%) across participating centers. Consent was obtained from substitute decision makers and patients in 90.1% and 9.9% of cases, respectively. Five factors were independently associated with consent rates. Research coordinators with more experience achieved higher consent rates (odds ratio [OR], 3.43; 95% confidence interval, 2.42-4.86; P < .001 for those with >10 years of experience). Consent rates were higher in smaller intensive care units with less than 15 beds compared with intensive care units with 15 to 20 beds, 21 to 25 beds, and greater than 25 beds (all ORs, <0.5; P < .001) and were higher in centers with more than 1 full-time research staff (OR, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.99; P < .001). Consent rates were lower in centers affiliated with the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group or the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group compared with other centers (OR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.77; P < .001). Finally, consent rates were highest during the pilot trial, lowest during the initiation of the full trial, and increased over years of recruitment (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics of study centers, research infrastructure, and experience were important factors associated with successfully procuring informed consent to participate in this thromboprophylaxis trial.

Surrogate decision makers' attitudes towards research decision making for critically ill patients

PURPOSE

To examine the attitudes and preferences of surrogate decision makers (SDMs) regarding their involvement in the consent to research process for ICU patients.

METHODS

We presented 136 SDMs of critically ill patients in five ICUs with four hypothetical research scenarios: baseline interventional study of a placebo controlled RCT; study with higher risk of treatment complication; study comparing two accepted treatments; study with shorter enrolment window. For each we asked SDMs if they would want to be involved in the consent to research decision, and to rate the acceptability of their comfort with, and their sense of burden with their involvement. Participants were screened for symptoms of anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

RESULTS

For the baseline scenario, most SDMs wished to be involved in research decision making (90 %; 95 % CI 84-95 %); responses varied little across study permutations. The majority considered their involvement to be acceptable (85 %; 95 % CI 77-90 %), whereas, a small minority rated it as being unacceptable (2 %; 95 % CI 1-6 %). Many were comfortable with being involved (50 %; 95 % CI 41-59 %), but the number decreased when risk of harm was higher (34 %; 95 % CI 26-43 %) or enrolment window was shorter (41 %; 95 % CI 33-50 %). A majority (62 %) reported symptoms of anxiety and many (38 %) had symptoms of depression.

CONCLUSION

Most of the interviewed SDMs wished to be involved in research decision making for critically ill and incapable loved ones. Variability existed, however, in their desire to be involved when decisions were time-sensitive or perceived risk was greater.

Views of emergency research (VERA): a qualitative study of women and their partners' views of recruitment to trials in severe postpartum haemorrhage

OBJECTIVE

to explore women's and their partners' views of recruitment to emergency trials in severe postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).

DESIGN

interview-based qualitative study. In semi-structured in-depth interviews, five recruitment options for a PPH trial in an emergency context were considered.

SETTING

interviews were carried out in participants' homes.

PARTICIPANTS

nine women who had experienced a severe PPH and six partners.

FINDINGS

interviewees rejected three options; decision-making by women prior to delivery, and by partners and legal representatives at the time of the emergency. Preferred options were women making antenatal decisions about trial entry themselves, followed by doctors making decisions at the time of the emergency.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

recruitment options involving women and their partners at the time of an emergency were rejected. Antenatal decision-making raises logistical and ethical considerations for emergency trial teams. Further research is needed to address the possibility of antenatal decisions for emergency trials and to develop and assess supportive post-enrolment recruitment and information strategies which take into account the stressful context of clinical emergencies such as PPH.

Consent in critical care trials: a survey of Canadian research ethics boards and critical care researchers

PURPOSE

Reliance on third party consent for patients without decision-making capacity presents unique challenges for critical care research. We compared the attitudes and beliefs of Canadian research ethics boards (REBs) and intensive care unit researchers toward the use of various consent models for a low-risk randomized controlled trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Self-administered, scenario-based survey.

RESULTS

Sixty-two percent of eligible REBs (n = 83) and 78% of eligible researchers (n = 124) completed the questionnaire. The REBs were less comfortable endorsing alternative consent models when a substitute decision maker was unavailable, including consent provided by (a) the intensivist involved with the trial (2.0% vs 15.3%; P = .014), (b) the intensivist not involved with the trial (10.0% vs 36.7%; P = .001), (c) 2 physicians (the intensivist and another consultant, neither of whom is involved with the trial) (18.0% vs 54.1%; P < .001), and (d) 2 physicians involved neither with the trial nor the patient's care (10.2% vs 52.0%; P < .001). In similar circumstances, REBs were less comfortable approving both deferred (8.0% vs 43.3%; P < .001) and waived (4.1% vs 22.4%; P = .005) consent.

CONCLUSIONS

In this survey of scenarios involving low-risk critical care research, REBs were significantly more conservative in approving alternative consent models compared with investigators.

Attitudes to drug trials among relatives of unconscious intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

In many countries relatives are asked to consent on behalf of ICU patients prior to inclusion in clinical trials. However, the attitudes to drug trials among relatives of unconscious ICU patients are largely unknown.

METHODS

We performed a prospective questionnaire survey at two university hospital ICUs of the next-of-kin to 50 unconscious adult patients. They were asked to complete a questionnaire within 48 hours of the patients' acute ICU admission.

RESULTS

Forty-two relatives returned the questionnaire of which 41 were completed by direct family members and in one case by a friend to the patient.The majority of relatives (36/42) were positive/positive with some scepticism towards performing drug trials in unconscious ICU patients and 30/42 would most likely accept trial-participation by their relative. The majority (30/42) agreed that they should decide if their relative was to participate in a drug trial and 24 of these found that the treating clinician/ICU consultant should also consent. The majority (27/42) found that deferred consent would be acceptable if there was a limited time frame for initiation of treatment, however 8 respondents found this unacceptable when the intervention was a new drug.The majority of relatives stipulated that adherence to legislation, treatment benefit for the study patient and for future patients, no patient-risk or -discomfort and development of new drugs were important factors if their relative was to participate in an ICU drug trial. When questioned about doctors' motives for performing drug trials the wish for drug development and better patient care were highly rated among relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, relatives to unconscious ICU patients expressed positive attitudes to drug trials in the ICU and the inclusion of their relative in drug trials. Consent by next-of-kin and deferred consent was acceptable to the majority of relatives.