Medical research in emergency research in the European Union member states: tensions between theory and practice

Emergency research without prior consent in the United States, Canada, European Union and United Kingdom: How regulatory differences affect study design and implementation in cardiac arrest trials

Aim

A major barrier to performing cardiac arrest trials is the requirement for prospective informed consent, which is often infeasible during individual medical emergencies. In an effort to improve outcomes, some governments have adopted legislation permitting research without prior consent (RWPC) in these circumstances. We aimed to outline key differences between legislation in four Western locations and explore the effects of these differences on trial design and implementation in cardiac arrest research.

Data sources

We performed a narrative review of RWPC legislation in the United States (US), Canada, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK).

Results

The primary criteria required to perform RWPC was similar across locations: the study must involve an individual medical emergency during which neither the prospective subject nor their authorized representative can provide informed consent. The US regulations were unique in their requirements for performing Community Consultation and Public Disclosure in the communities in which the research takes place. Another major difference was the requirement for consent for ongoing participation in Canada, the EU and the UK, while only notification of enrollment and the opportunity to discontinue participation are required in the US. Additionally, only Canada and the EU explicitly state that the subject or their representative may request withdrawal of their data.

Conclusion

Regulations governing RWPC in the US, Canada, the EU and the UK have similar goals and protections for vulnerable populations during medical emergencies. Differences in the qualifying criteria and implementation procedures exist across locations and may affect study design.

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required.

DISCUSSION

A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from 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.

Patient and proxies' attitudes towards deferred consent in randomised trials of acute treatment for stroke: A qualitative survey

Introduction

Deferral of consent for participation in a clinical study is a relatively novel procedure, in which informed consent is obtained after randomisation and study treatment. Deferred consent can be used in emergency situations, where small therapeutic time windows limit possibilities for patients to provide informed consent. We aimed to investigate patients' or their proxies' experiences and opinions regarding deferred consent in acute stroke randomised trials.

Patients and methods

For this qualitative study, Dutch Collaboration for New Treatments of Acute Stroke (CONTRAST) trial participants were selected. Study participants were either patients or their proxies who provided consent and were selected with theoretical sampling based on patient characteristics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone. Themes and subthemes were iteratively defined.

Results

Twenty of the 23 interviewed participants (16 patients and 7 proxies) considered deferred consent acceptable. The received study treatment and consent conversation were remembered by 18 participations, although the concept of randomisation and treatment comparison were generally not well understood. Sixteen participants felt capable of overseeing the decision to give deferred consent. Distress in the first days after stroke, lack of understanding and neurological deficits were reasons for feeling incapable of providing consent. Four participants would have preferred a different timing of the consent conversation, of whom two prior to treatment.

Conclusion

Our study found that deferred consent was considered acceptable by most study participants who provided consent for acute stroke randomised trials. Though they felt capable, the recall and comprehension of consent were overall limited.

[Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions]

These European Resuscitation Council Ethics guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the ethical, routine practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care of adults and children. The guideline primarily focus on major ethical practice interventions (i.e. advance directives, advance care planning, and shared decision making), decision making regarding resuscitation, education, and research. These areas are tightly related to the application of the principles of bioethics in the practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions

These European Resuscitation Council Ethics guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the ethical, routine practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care of adults and children. The guideline primarily focus on major ethical practice interventions (i.e. advance directives, advance care planning, and shared decision making), decision making regarding resuscitation, education, and research. These areas are tightly related to the application of the principles of bioethics in the practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care.

Informed consent procedures for emergency interventional research in patients with traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke

Health-care professionals and researchers have a legal and ethical responsibility to inform patients before carrying out diagnostic tests or treatment interventions as part of a clinical study. Interventional research in emergency situations can involve patients with some degree of acute cognitive impairment, as is regularly the case in traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke. These patients or their proxies are often unable to provide informed consent within narrow therapeutic time windows. International regulations and national laws are criticised for being inconclusive or restrictive in providing solutions. Currently accepted consent alternatives are deferred consent, exception from consent, or waiver of consent. However, these alternatives appear under-utilised despite being ethically permissible, socially acceptable, and regulatorily compliant. We anticipate that, when the requirements for medical urgency are properly balanced with legal and ethical conduct, the increased use of these alternatives has the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of future emergency interventional studies in patients with an inability to provide informed consent.

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.

Neurological Deficits in Stroke Patients that May Impede the Capacity to Provide Informed Consent for Endovascular Treatment Trials

BACKGROUND

We assessed the occurrence of neurological deficits that may impede the capacity to provide consent for trial participation in patients with an acute stroke, who are eligible for endovascular treatment (EVT).

METHODS

We used data from the Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands Registry, a prospective observational cohort study. We included 1526 patients with an anterior large vessel occlusion, undergoing EVT between March 2014 and June 2016. We based our assessment of decision-making capacity for trial participation on neurological symptoms influencing conditions concerning informed consent as stated in the declaration of Helsinki. We formulated a strict and a mild capacity assessment rule, using 2 different cut points in item scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).

RESULTS

Applying the strict and mild rule, respectively 1469 (96%) and 1220 (80%) patients deemed not capable of decision-making for trial participation on admission, and 1077 (79%) and 825 (60%) patients at 24-48 hours after admission. Highest frequencies of predefined scores suggesting incapacity based on the strict rule were on the NIHSS items "Level of Consciousness Questions" (59%), "Best Gaze" (68%), and "Best Language" (58%). Patients who were considered incapable were older (median 71 versus 66 years, P = .043), had higher NIHSS scores (median 16 versus 8, P < .001), and had more often left hemisphere strokes (55% versus 28%, P < .001) than patients who were presumably capable.

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of patients with an anterior circulation stroke who are eligible for EVT, neurological deficits are present that may impede the capacity to provide informed consent for trial participation.

What are research nurses' experiences of obtaining consent from or for patients participating in emergency care research? A qualitative review

INTRODUCTION

If studies are to be valid, recruitment of representative samples is essential. In 2012, 28% of UK emergency departments met the 80% standard for recruitment to trials set by the National Institute for Health Research. Research nurses play a vital role in the conduct of high-quality research, and it has been argued that dedicated research nurses are needed if clinical trials are to recruit successfully to target.

REVIEW QUESTION

What are research nurses' experiences of obtaining consent from or for patients participating in emergency care research? A qualitative evidence review.

METHODS

A qualitative integrative literature review with a narrative synthesis of the evidence. PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic qualitative reviews (Appendix S1) were followed. A search of five electronic databases was performed in December 2018 along with a hand search which yielded 125 citations: 10 papers and one PhD thesis met the review eligibility criteria. Methodological quality of the selected studies was evaluated, and data were extracted and synthesised.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: Access, Organisation and Timing. Research nurses encountered both general and specific barriers when seeking to obtain consent for participation in research. In particular, it was found there was lack of experience among staff of working in emergency research and with securing deferred consent. The distinction between nurse researchers with a clinical role and those dedicated to solely to research only is often not clear and warrants further investigation.

CONCLUSION

Nurse researchers with and without a clinical role can make a positive difference in recruitment to trials in emergency care. The involvement of dedicated research nurses in the consent process can increase recruitment to emergency care research. Experience of recruiting to clinical trials in nonemergency settings does not seem to help when recruiting for trials in emergency care.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

There is a need for greater understanding of the experiences of dedicated research nurses in emergency care settings and in particular with regard to deferred consent.

Huge variation in obtaining ethical permission for a non-interventional observational study in Europe

Background

Ethical approval (EA) must be obtained before medical research can start. We describe the differences in EA for an pseudonymous, non-interventional, observational European study.

Methods

Sixteen European national coordinators (NCs) of the international study on very old intensive care patients answered an online questionnaire concerning their experience getting EA.

Results

N = 8/16 of the NCs could apply at one single national ethical committee (EC), while the others had to apply to various regional ECs and/or individual hospital institutional research boards (IRBs). The time between applying for EA and the first decision varied between 7 days and 300 days. In 9/16 informed consent from the patient was not deemed necessary; in 7/16 informed consent was required from the patient or relatives. The upload of coded data to a central database required additional information in 14/16. In 4/16 the NCs had to ask separate approval to keep a subject identification code list to de-pseudonymize the patients if questions would occur. Only 2/16 of the NCs agreed that informed consent was necessary for this observational study. Overall, 6/16 of the NCs were satisfied with the entire process and 8/16 were (very) unsatisfied. 11/16 would welcome a European central EC that would judge observational studies for all European countries.

Discussion

Variations in the process and prolonged time needed to get EA for observational studies hampers inclusion of patients in some European countries. This might have a negative influence on the external validity. Further harmonization of ethical approval process across Europe is welcomed for low-risk observational studies.

Conclusion

Getting ethical approval for low-risk, non-interventional, observational studies varies enormously across European countries.

Uninformed refusals: objections to enrolment in clinical trials conducted under an Exception from Informed Consent for emergency research

Clinical trials in emergency situations present unique challenges, because they involve enrolling individuals who lack capacity to consent in the context of acute illness or injury. The US Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration regulations allowing an Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) in these circumstances contain requirements for community consultation, public disclosure and restrictions on study risks and benefits. In this paper, we analyse an issue raised in the regulations that has received little attention or analysis but is ethically complex. This challenge is when to solicit and honour objections to EFIC trial enrolment, including from non-legally appointed representatives. We address novel questions involving whose objections should be honoured, what level of understanding is necessary for objections to be considered valid and how hard investigators should work to offer an opportunity to object. We present a set of criteria that provide conceptual and practical guidance. We argue that objections should be honoured if they undermine one of the key assumptions that allows for the permissibility of EFIC trials: that individuals would likely not object to enrolment based on their values or preferences. We then clarify the practical implications of this approach through examination of three cases of refusal in an EFIC study.

Children's views on research without prior consent in emergency situations: a UK qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

We explored children's views on research without prior consent (RWPC) and sought to identify ways of involving children in research discussions.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING

Participants were recruited through a UK children's hospital and online advertising.

PARTICIPANTS

16 children aged 7-15 years with a diagnosis of asthma (n=14) or anaphylaxis (n=2) with recent (<12 months) experience of emergency care.

RESULTS

Children were keen to be included in medical research and viewed RWPC as acceptable in emergency situations if trial interventions were judged safe. Children trusted that doctors would know about their trial participation and act in their best interests. All felt that children should be informed about the research following their recovery and involved in discussions with a clinician or their parent(s) about the use of data already collected as well as continued participation in the trial (if applicable). Participants suggested methods to inform children about their trial participation including an animation.

CONCLUSIONS

Children supported, and were keen to be involved in, clinical trials in emergency situations. We present guidance and an animation that practitioners and parents might use to involve children in trial discussions following their recovery.

Ethical challenges in resuscitation

PURPOSE

A rapidly evolving resuscitation science provides more effective treatments to an aging population with multiple comorbidites. Concurrently, emergency care has become patient-centered. This review aims to describe challenges associated with the application of key principles of bioethics in resuscitation and post-resuscitation care; propose actions to address these challenges; and highlight the need for evidence-based ethics and consensus on ethical principles interpretation.

METHODS

Following agreement on the article's outline, subgroups of 2-3 authors provided narrative reviews of ethical issues concerning autonomy and honesty, beneficence/nonmaleficence and dignity, justice, specific practices/circumstances such as family presence during resuscitation, and emergency research. Proposals for addressing ethical challenges were also offered.

RESULTS

Respect for patient autonomy can be realized through honest provision of information, shared decision-making, and advance directives/care planning. Essential prerequisites comprise public and specific healthcare professionals' education, appropriate regulatory provisions, and allocation of adequate resources. Regarding beneficence/nonmaleficence, resuscitation should benefit patients, while avoiding harm from futile interventions; pertinent practice should be based on neurological prognostication and patient/family-reported outcomes. Regarding dignity, aggressive life-sustaining treatments against patients preferences should be avoided. Contrary to the principle of justice, resuscitation quality may be affected by race/income status, age, ethnicity, comorbidity, and location (urban versus rural or country-specific/region-specific). Current evidence supports family presence during resuscitation. Regarding emergency research, autonomy should be respected without hindering scientific progress; furthermore, transparency of research conduct should be promoted and funding increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Major ethical challenges in resuscitation science need to be addressed through complex/resource-demanding interventions. Such actions require support by ongoing/future research.

A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock

OBJECTIVE

The Fluids in Shock (FiSh) Trial proposes to evaluate whether restrictive fluid bolus therapy (10 mL/kg) is more beneficial than current recommended practice (20 mL/kg) in the resuscitation of children with septic shock in the UK. This qualitative feasibility study aimed to explore acceptability of the FiSh Trial, including research without prior consent (RWPC), potential barriers to recruitment and participant information for a pilot trial.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study involving parents of children who had presented to a UK emergency department or been admitted to a paediatric intensive care unit with severe infection in the previous 3 years.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-one parents (seven bereaved) were interviewed 16 (median) months since their child's hospital admission (range: 1-41).

RESULTS

All parents said they would have provided consent for the use of their child's data in the FiSh Trial. The majority were unfamiliar with RWPC, yet supported its use. Parents were initially concerned about the change from currently recommended treatment, yet were reassured by explanations of the current evidence base, fluid bolus therapy and monitoring procedures. Parents made recommendations about the timing of the research discussion and content of participant information. Bereaved parents stated that recruiters should not discuss research immediately after a child's death, but supported a personalised postal 'opt-out' approach to consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings show that parents whose child has experienced severe infection supported the proposed FiSh Trial, including the use of RWPC. Parents' views informed the development of the pilot trial protocol and site staff training.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN15244462-results.

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.

Research in Emergency and Critical Care Settings: Debates, Obstacles and Solutions

Research is an integral part of evidence-based practice in the emergency department and critical care unit that improves patient management. It is important to understand the need and major obstacles for conducting research in emergency settings. Herein, we review the literature for the obligations, ethics and major implications of emergency research and the associated limiting factors influencing research activities in critical care and emergency settings. We reviewed research engines such as PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for the last two decades using the key words "emergency department", "critical care", "research", "consent", and "ethics" as the search terms. Research within emergency settings is slow or non-existent due to time and financial constraints as well as the lack of a research tradition. There are several barriers to conducting research studies in emergency situations such as who, what, when, and how to obtain patient consent. The emergency environment is highly pressurized, emotional, and overburdened. The time taken for research is a particular risk that could delay the desired immediate interventions. Ethical issues abound, particularly relating to informed consent. Research in emergency settings is still in its infancy. Thus, there is a strong need for extensive research in the emergency setting through community awareness, resource management, ethics, collaborations, capacity building, and the development of a research interest for the improvement of patient care and outcomes. We need to establish a well-structured plan to assess and track the decision-making capacity, consider a multistep enrolment and consent strategy, and develop an integrated approach for recruitment into studies.

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.

How parents and practitioners experience research without prior consent (deferred consent) for emergency research involving children with life threatening conditions: a mixed method study

OBJECTIVE

Alternatives to prospective informed consent to enable children with life-threatening conditions to be entered into trials of emergency treatments are needed. Across Europe, a process called deferred consent has been developed as an alternative. Little is known about the views and experiences of those with first-hand experience of this controversial consent process. To inform how consent is sought for future paediatric critical care trials, we explored the views and experiences of parents and practitioners involved in the CATheter infections in CHildren (CATCH) trial, which allowed for deferred consent in certain circumstances.

DESIGN

Mixed method survey, interview and focus group study.

PARTICIPANTS

275 parents completed a questionnaire; 20 families participated in an interview (18 mothers, 5 fathers). 17 CATCH practitioners participated in one of four focus groups (10 nurses, 3 doctors and 4 clinical trial unit staff).

SETTING

12 UK children's hospitals.

RESULTS

Some parents were momentarily shocked or angered to discover that their child had or could have been entered into CATCH without their prior consent. Although these feelings resolved after the reasons why consent needed to be deferred were explained and that the CATCH interventions were already used in clinical care. Prior to seeking deferred consent for the first few times, CATCH practitioners were apprehensive, although their feelings abated with experience of talking to parents about CATCH. Parents reported that their decisions about their child's participation in the trial had been voluntary. However, mistiming the deferred consent discussion had caused distress for some. Practitioners and parents supported the use of deferred consent in CATCH and in future trials of interventions already used in clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides evidence to support the use of deferred consent in paediatric emergency medicine; it also indicates the crucial importance of practitioner communication and appropriate timing of deferred consent discussions.

Hemodynamic assessment of ventilated ICU patients with cardiorespiratory failure using a miniaturized multiplane transesophageal echocardiography probe

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility, image quality, diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic impact and tolerance of diagnostic and hemodynamic assessment using a novel miniaturized multiplane transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probe in ventilated ICU patients with cardiopulmonary compromise.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, descriptive, single-center study.

METHODS

Fifty-seven ventilated patients with acute circulatory or respiratory failure were assessed, using a miniaturized multiplane TEE probe and a standard TEE probe used as reference, randomly by two independent experienced operators. Measurements of hemodynamic parameters were independently performed off-line by a third expert. Diagnostic groups of acute circulatory failure (n = 5) and of acute respiratory failure (n = 3) were distinguished. Hemodynamic monitoring was performed in 9 patients using the miniaturized TEE probe. TEE tolerance and therapeutic impact were reported.

RESULTS

The miniaturized TEE probe was easier to insert than the standard TEE probe. Despite lower imaging quality of the miniaturized TEE probe, the two probes had excellent diagnostic agreement in patients with acute circulatory failure (Kappa: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.85-1) and with acute respiratory failure (Kappa: 1; 95% CI: 1.0-1.0). Accordingly, therapeutic strategies derived from both TEE examinations were concordant (Kappa: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.66-0.97). The concordance between quantitative hemodynamic parameters obtained with both TEE probes was also excellent. No relevant complication secondary to TEE probes insertion occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemodynamic assessment of ventilated ICU patients with cardiopulmonary compromise using a miniaturized multiplane TEE probe appears feasible, well-tolerated, and relevant in terms of diagnostic information and potential therapeutic impact. Further larger-scale studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.

Evolution of European Union legislation on emergency research

AIM

Emergency research is necessary to prevent exposure of patients to unvalidated clinical practice (nonmaleficence), and to improve the dismal prognosis of disorders requiring emergent treatment such as cardiac arrest (beneficence). Regulations that govern clinical research should conform to bioethical principles of respect for nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. Our objectives are to review the evolution of European Union (EU) legislation on emergency research, and to identify potentially remaining problems.

DATA SOURCES

EU legislative sources on clinical research and medical literature describing the impact of EU Regulations on emergency research.

RESULTS

Article 5 of EU Directive 2001/20/EC required consent before enrolment in a research study to ensure the autonomy of potentially incapacitated research subjects. However, obtaining such consent is often impossible in emergency situations. Directive 2001/20/EC was criticized for potentially preventing emergency research. Several EU Member States addressed this problem by permitting deferred consent. International ethical guidelines supporting deferred consent were also cited by Good Clinical Practice Directive 2005/28/EC. However, Directive 2001/20/EC was not revised to achieve harmonization of EU emergency research, thus resulting in ongoing "ambiguity" as regards to emergency research legitimacy. This will be definitively addressed by applying EU Regulation No. 536/2014 and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. The new EU Regulation permits using deferred consent under clearly specified conditions, and may foster emergency research that evaluates interventions posing minimal risk relative to standard practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Legislation related to emergency research in Europe has evolved to increase concordance with bioethical principles so as to increase evidence-based improvements in emergency care.