Attitudes of emergency department patients and visitors regarding emergency exception from informed consent in resuscitation research, community consultation, and public notification

Meeting unique requirements: Community consultation and public disclosure for research in emergency setting using exception from informed consent

BACKGROUND

Exception from informed consent (EFIC) regulations for research in emergency settings contain unique requirements for community consultation and public disclosure. These requirements address ethical challenges intrinsic to this research context. Multiple approaches have evolved to accomplish these activities that may reflect and advance different aims. This scoping review was designed to identify areas of consensus and lingering uncertainty in the literature.

METHODS

Scoping review methodology was used. Conceptual and empirical literature related to community consultation and public disclosure for EFIC research was included and identified through a structured search using Embase, HEIN Online, PubMed, and Web of Science. Data were extracted using a standardized tool with domains for major literature categories.

RESULTS

Among 84 manuscripts, major domains included conceptual or policy issues, reports of community consultation processes and results, and reports of public disclosure processes and results. Areas of consensus related to community consultation included the need for a two-way exchange of information and use of multiple methods. Public acceptance of personal EFIC enrollment is commonly 64% to 85%. There is less consensus regarding how to assess attitudes, what "communities" to prioritize, and how to determine adequacy for individual projects. Core goals of public disclosure are less well developed; no metrics exist for assessing adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple methods are used to meet community consultation and public disclosure requirements. There remain no settled norms for assessing adequacy of public disclosure, and there is lingering debate about needed breadth and depth of community consultation.

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.

[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.

Patient and surrogate attitudes via an interviewer-administered survey on exception from informed consent enrollment in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial

Objectives

With increased focus on early resuscitation methods following injury to improve patient outcomes, studies are employing exception from informed consent (EFIC) enrollment. Few studies have assessed patients’ opinions following participation in an EFIC study, and none have been conducted within the realm of traumatic hemorrhage. We surveyed those patients and surrogates previously enrolled in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial to clarify their opinions related to consent and emergency research.

Methods

Telephone calls were made between January–June 2019 to all patients who were enrolled under EFIC in the PAMPer study at the Pittsburgh site (169 of the 501 total patients enrolled, May 2014-Oct 2017) and their surrogates. Questions gauging approval of EFIC enrollment were asked before discussion of PAMPer trial outcomes, after disclosure of positive outcomes, and after a hypothetical negative trial outcome was proposed.

Results

Of the total 647 telephone calls made, ninety-three interviews, reflecting 70 of 169 patient enrollments, were conducted. This included 13 in which only the patient was interviewed, 23 in which the patient and a surrogate were interviewed, and 34 in which only a surrogate was interviewed. Nearly half (48.4%) of respondents did not recall their personal or family member enrollment in the study. No patients or surrogates recalled hearing about the study through community consultation or being aware of opt out procedures. Patients and surrogates were glad they were enrolled (90.3%), agreed with EFIC use for their personal enrollment (88.17%), and agreed with the general use of EFIC for the PAMPer study (81.7%). Disclosure of the true positive PAMPer study outcome resulted in a significant increase in opinions regarding personal enrollment, EFIC for personal enrollment, and EFIC for general enrollment (all p < 0.001). Disclosure of a hypothetical neutral or negative study outcome resulted in significant decreases in opinions regarding EFIC for personal enrollment (p = 0.003) and EFIC for general enrollment (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Clinical trial participants with traumatic hemorrhagic shock enrolled with EFIC, and surrogates of such participants, are generally accepting of EFIC. The results of the trial in which EFIC was utilized significantly affected patient and surrogate agreement with personal and general EFIC enrollment.

Legal medicine implications in fibrinolytic therapy of acute ischemic stroke

Background

Before the advent of fibrinolytic therapy as a gold standard method of care for cases of acute ischemic stroke in Romania, issues regarding legal medicine aspects involved in this area of medical expertise were already presented and, in the majority of cases, the doctors seem to be unprepared for these situations.

Main text

The present research illustrates some of the cases in which these aspects were involved, that adressed a clinical center having 6 years of professional experience in the application of fibrinolytic treatment for stroke. The following cases report either situations in which the afore mentioned therapy was not rightfully administrated or legal aspects regarding the obtainment of informed consent.

Conclusion

Obtaining informed consent is a mandatory procedure, which takes time, to the detriment of application of fibrinolytic treatment.

Protecting study participants in emergency research: is community consultation before trial commencement enough?

Background

This article presents the results of a community consultation (CC) process completed in Toronto, Ontario, using a random digit dialling technique, on the attitudes and perceptions of the public toward the use of exception from informed consent when conducting emergency research involving the use of massive blood transfusions.

Methods

In 2012, our hospital conducted a CC, using a random digit dialling technique, to elicit the attitudes and perceptions of the public toward the use of an exemption from informed consent for an upcoming clinical trial. A total of 500 participants from high violent crime areas were interviewed as part of this consultation.

Results

The response rate for the telephone survey was 54%. Participants indicated a personal acceptance rate of 76%, acceptance of the justification for the exception to consent at 81%, thatthe study would meet the best interest of patients and the community at 81% and that youth (between 15 and 18 years) could be enrolled at 71%. When offered, no participant requested an opt-out wrist band to avoid being enrolled in this study.

Discussion

The use of violent crime neighborhoods to locate at risk communities was not effective in identifying the appropriate community of interest for this study. Though only representing a small subpopulation from a large Canadian city, the attitudes noted here is suggestive that Canadians may have a similar level of acceptance as the US based on published studies. However, given the resources needed to undertake this process and that in the end it did not elicit any useful feedback or recommendations for enhancing the safety of participants, the future use of phone surveys as a means of engaging communities should be reconsidered.

Level of evidence Level V

This is a retrospective subanalysis of a CC using a randomized phone dialling technique from a site prior to the start of the Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios Trial. The CC was not designed specifically for research purposes and as such reflect only a case study from a single center.

Trial registration number

Pre-result, NCT01545232.

A Novel Emergency Department-based Community Notification Method for Clinical Research Without Consent

OBJECTIVE

We used an emergency department (ED)-based method to provide targeted, individualized consultation; community notification; and public disclosure and collect data regarding willingness to participate in prospective resuscitation research requiring waiver of consent.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective survey of convenience cohort in an urban ED. We targeted the community of ED patients with pulmonary disease for individualized notification and public disclosure using a 1) large poster, 2) scripted oral presentation describing an emergency intubation clinical trial, and 3) video demonstration.

RESULTS

Approximately 10% of our annual ED census, 6,936 subjects, enrolled. Of that total, 29 were also subjects in a prospective coincident endotracheal resuscitation intubation study, which enrolled a total of 262 subjects. ED community notification was provided to 22 of the 29 (75.9%) subjects prior to the visit during which they were intubated (13 agreed to participate, six declined, and three undecided) and seven of the 29 subjects subsequent to enrollment in the intubation study (five agreed to participate and two undecided). Fourteen of the 29 patients who participated in both projects had undergone endotracheal intubation at least once prior to community notification: 10 agreed to participate in the study, two declined, and two were undecided.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency department-based community notification and public disclosure is a viable way to provide information to a target population and collect data about the success of the notification. Feedback data collection is critical to an ethical understanding of the success of community notification for the institutional review board and investigators. Collection of feedback data should be required as a subject protection for exception from informed consent in emergency settings.

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.

EMS Provider Attitudes and Perceptions of Enrolling Patients without Consent in Prehospital Emergency Research

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the attitudes and opinions of a broad population of EMS providers on enrolling patients in research without consent. A survey was conducted in 2010 of all EMS providers who participated in the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT) reregistration process, which included half of all registered providers. Each reregistration packet included our optional survey, which had nine 6-point Likert scale questions concerning their opinion of research studies without consent as well as 8 demographic questions. Responses were collapsed to agree and disagree and then analyzed using descriptive statistics with 99% confidence intervals. A total of 65,993 EMS providers received the survey and 23,832 (36%) participated. Most respondents agreed (98.4%, 99%CI: 98.2-98.6) that EMS research is important, but only 30.9% (99%CI: 30.1-31.6) agreed with enrolling patients without their consent when it is important to learn about a new treatment. Only 46.6% (99%Cl: 45.7-47.4) were personally willing to be enrolled in a study without their consent. A majority (68.5% [99%Cl: 67.7-69.3]) of respondents believed that EMS providers should have the individual right to refuse to enroll patients in EMS research. While the majority of respondents agreed that EMS research is important, considerably less agree with enrolling patients without consent and less than half would be willing to be enrolled in a study without their consent. Prior to starting an Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) study, researchers should discuss with EMS providers their perceptions of enrolling patients without consent and address their concerns.

Variation of community consultation and public disclosure for a pediatric multi-centered "Exception from Informed Consent" trial

BACKGROUND

The US federal regulation "Exception from Informed Consent for Emergency Research," 21 Code of Federal Regulations 50.24, permits emergency research without informed consent under limited conditions. Additional safeguards to protect human subjects include requirements for community consultation and public disclosure prior to starting the research. Because the regulations are vague about these requirements, Institutional Review Boards determine the adequacy of these activities at a local level. Thus, there is potential for broad interpretation and practice variation.

AIM

To describe the variation of community consultation and public disclosure activities approved by Institutional Review Boards, and the effectiveness of this process for a multi-center, Exception from Informed Consent, pediatric status epilepticus clinical research trial.

METHODS

Community consultation and public disclosure activities were analyzed for each of the 15 participating sites. Surveys were conducted with participants enrolled in the status epilepticus trial to assess the effectiveness of public disclosure dissemination prior to study enrollment.

RESULTS

Every Institutional Review Board, among the 15 participating sites, had a varied interpretation of Exception from Informed Consent regulations for community consultation and public disclosure activities. Institutional Review Boards required various combinations of focus groups, interviews, surveys, and meetings for community consultation, and news releases, mailings, and public service announcements for public disclosure. At least 4335 patients received information about the study from these efforts. In all, 158 chose to be included in the "Opt Out" list. Of the 304 participants who were enrolled under Exception from Informed Consent, 12 (5%) had heard about the study through community consultation or public disclosure activities. The activities reaching the highest number of participants were surveys and focus groups associated with existing meetings. Public disclosure activities were more efficient and cost-effective if they were part of an in-hospital resource for patients and families.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial variation in Institutional Review Boards' interpretations of the federal regulations for community consultation and public disclosure. One of the goals of community consultation and public disclosure efforts for emergency research is to provide community members an opportunity to opt out of Exception from Informed Consent research; however, rarely do patients or their legally authorized representatives report having learned about a study prior to enrollment.

Improving community understanding of medical research: audience response technology for community consultation for exception to informed consent

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration described guidelines for exception from informed consent (EFIC) research. These guidelines require community consultation (CC) events, which allow members of the community to understand the study, provide feedback and give advice. A real-time gauge of audience understanding would allow the speaker to modify the discussion. The objective of the study is to describe the use of audience response survey (ARS) technology in EFIC CCs.

METHODS

As part of the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART), 13 CC events were conducted. We prepared a PowerPoint™ presentation with 4 embedded ARS questions,according to specific IRB guidelines to ensure that the pertinent information would reach our targeted audience. During 6 CCs, an ARS was used to gauge audience comprehension. Participants completed paper surveys regarding their opinion of the study following each CC.

RESULTS

The ARS was used with minimal explanation and only one ARS was lost. Greater than 80% of the participants correctly answered 3 of the 4 ARS questions with 61% correctly answering the question regarding EFIC. A total of 105 participants answered the paper survey; 80-90% of the responses to the paper survey were either strongly agree or agree. The average scores on the paper survey in the ARS sites compared to the non-ARS sites were significantly more positive.

CONCLUSION

The use of an audience response system during the community consultation aspects of EFIC is feasible and provides a real-time assessment of audience comprehension of the study and EFIC process. It may improve the community's opinion and support of the study.

Systematic review and metasummary of attitudes toward research in emergency medical conditions

Emergency departments are challenging research settings, where truly informed consent can be difficult to obtain. A deeper understanding of emergency medical patients' opinions about research is needed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-summary of quantitative and qualitative studies on which values, attitudes, or beliefs of emergent medical research participants influence research participation. We included studies of adults that investigated opinions toward emergency medicine research participation. We excluded studies focused on the association between demographics or consent document features and participation and those focused on non-emergency research. In August 2011, we searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Scirus, PsycINFO, AgeLine and Global Health. Titles, abstracts and then full manuscripts were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and adjudicated by a third author. Studies were evaluated for bias using standardised scores. We report themes associated with participation or refusal. Our initial search produced over 1800 articles. A total of 44 articles were extracted for full-manuscript analysis, and 14 were retained based on our eligibility criteria. Among factors favouring participation, altruism and personal health benefit had the highest frequency. Mistrust of researchers, feeling like a 'guinea pig' and risk were leading factors favouring refusal. Many studies noted limitations of informed consent processes in emergent conditions. We conclude that highlighting the benefits to the participant and society, mitigating risk and increasing public trust may increase research participation in emergency medical research. New methods for conducting informed consent in such studies are needed.

Doing challenging research studies in a patient-centred way: a qualitative study to inform a randomised controlled trial in the paediatric emergency care setting

OBJECTIVE

To inform the design of a randomised controlled trial (called EcLiPSE) to improve the treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus (CSE). EcLiPSE requires the use of a controversial deferred consent process.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview and focus group study.

SETTING

8 UK support groups for parents of children who have chronic or acute health conditions and experience of paediatric emergency care.

PARTICIPANTS

17 parents, of whom 11 participated in telephone interviews (10 mothers, 1 father) and 6 in a focus group (5 mothers, 1 father). 6 parents (35%) were bereaved and 7 (41%) had children who had experienced seizures, including CSE.

RESULTS

Most parents had not heard of deferred consent, yet they supported its use to enable the progress of emergency care research providing a child's safety was not compromised by the research. Parents were reassured by tailored explanation, which focused their attention on aspects of EcLiPSE that addressed their priorities and concerns. These aspects included the safety of the interventions under investigation and how both EcLiPSE interventions are used in routine clinical practice. Parents made recommendations about the appropriate timing of a recruitment discussion, the need to individualise approaches to recruiting bereaved parents and the use of clear written information.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provided information to help ensure that a challenging trial was patient centred in its design. We will use our findings to help EcLiPSE practitioners to: discuss potentially threatening trial safety information with parents, use open-ended questions and prompts to identify their priorities and concerns and clarify related aspects of written trial information to assist understanding and decision-making.

Consulting communities when patients cannot consent: a multicenter study of community consultation for research in emergency settings

OBJECTIVES

To assess the range of responses to community consultation efforts conducted within a large network and the impact of different consultation methods on acceptance of exception from informed consent research and understanding of the proposed study.

DESIGN

A cognitively pretested survey instrument was administered to 2,612 community consultation participants at 12 U.S. centers participating in a multicenter trial of treatment for acute traumatic brain injury.

SETTING

Survey nested within community consultation for a phase III randomized controlled trial of treatment for acute traumatic brain injury conducted within a multicenter trial network and using exception from informed consent.

SUBJECTS

Adult participants in community consultation events.

INTERVENTIONS

Community consultation efforts at participating sites.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Acceptance of exception from informed consent in general, attitude toward personal exception from informed consent enrollment, and understanding of the study content were assessed. Fifty-four percent of participants agreed exception from informed consent enrollment was acceptable in general in the proposed study; 71% were accepting of personal exception from informed consent enrollment. Participants in interactive versus noninteractive community consultation events were more accepting of exception from informed consent in general (63% vs 49%) and personal exception from informed consent inclusion (77% vs 67%). Interactive community consultation participants had high-level recall of study content significantly more often than noninteractive consultation participants (77% vs 67%). Participants of interactive consultation were more likely to recall possible study benefits (61% vs 45%) but less likely to recall potential risks (56% vs 69%).

CONCLUSIONS

Interactive community consultation methods were associated with increased acceptance of exception from informed consent and greater overall recall of study information but lower recall of risks. There was also significant variability in exception from informed consent acceptance among different interactive consultation events. These findings have important implications for institutional review board and investigators conducting exception from informed consent research and for community engagement efforts in research more generally.

How experience makes a difference: practitioners' views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials

BACKGROUND

In 2008 UK legislation was amended to enable the use of deferred consent for paediatric emergency care (EC) trials in recognition of the practical and ethical difficulties of obtaining prospective consent in an emergency situation. However, ambiguity about how to make deferred consent acceptable to parents, children and practitioners remains. In particular, little is known about practitioners' views and experiences of seeking deferred consent in this setting.

METHODS

As part of a wider study investigating consent methods in paediatric emergency care trials (called CONNECT), a 20 item online questionnaire was sent by email inviting practitioners (doctors and nurses) who were involved in talking with families about children's and young people's (aged 0-16 years) participation in UK EC trials. To ensure those with and without experience of deferred consent were included, practitioners were sampled using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling methods. Simple descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data, whilst the constant comparative method was used to analyse qualitative data. Elements of a symbiotic empirical ethics approach was used to integrate empirical evidence and bioethical literature to explore the data and draw practice orientated conclusions.

RESULTS

Views on deferred consent differed depending upon whether or not practitioners were experienced in this consent method. Practitioners who had no experience of deferred consent reported negative perceptions of this consent method; these practitioners were concerned about the impact that deferred consent would have upon the parent-practitioner relationship. In contrast, practitioners experienced in deferred consent described how families had been receptive to the consent method, if conducted sensitively and in a time appropriate manner. Experienced practitioners also described how deferred consent had improved recruitment, parental decision-making capacity and parent-practitioner relationships in the emergency care setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The views of practitioners with first-hand experience of deferred consent should be considered in the design and ethical review of future paediatric EC trials; the design and ethical review of such trials should not solely be informed by the beliefs of those without experience of using deferred consent. Further research involving parents and children is required to inform practitioner training and normative guidance on the use and appropriateness of deferred consent in emergency settings.

Waiver of informed consent in pediatric resuscitation research: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In critical care and emergency medicine research, obtaining consent can be problematic when patients present with life-threatening conditions. This issue is further complicated in children, as even while coherent, they are often incapable of making decisions regarding their own care. To enable the ethical conduct of research in such situations, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States has set recommendations for the conduct of research employing a waiver of consent. These regulations have been termed "exception from informed consent," or EFIC. As this is an evolving concept with limited pediatric experience, the authors conducted a review to examine the conduct of emergency research in the absence of prospectively obtained informed consent. Our review focused both on opinions and on the ability to conduct research without informed consent in life-threatening situations.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases were searched on January 9, 2013. Eligibility criteria included: 1) examined a method of conducting research in a life-threatening situation, 2) involved a real or theoretical clinical situation, 3) involved patients less than 18 years of age or a substitute decision-maker, and 4) reported at least one quantifiable outcome. The findings were synthesized qualitatively with the pertinent results summarized and discussed.

RESULTS

Eleven articles matched the eligibility criteria. Six focused on community consultation and public disclosure, three focused on the feasibility of employing a waiver of consent, and two examined attitudes toward emergency research. Of the studies focusing on community consultation, four defined the community as previous or current patients and health care providers and administrators in the study's home institution; the other two defined the community as the general population. Although there was heterogeneity in study designs, settings, and outcome measures, overall 68% (3,219 of 4,767) of subjects surveyed supported the use of EFIC under select circumstances (individual study range = 50% to 92%). Caregiver support increased among those in whom the situation was a more possible reality (e.g., critical care unit patients) and varied by the scenario and method of presentation (e.g., bulleted handout vs. preferred). Several studies revealed that patient accrual and time to intervention are impeded when prospective informed consent is required. Finally, deferred consent, although endorsed and used outside of the United States, continues to raise important ethical questions, particularly related to the need and timing of disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited data exist evaluating ethical issues in pediatric acute care resuscitation research. This review highlighted the fact that every proposal is unique and the method of obtaining consent (or waiver) requires careful consideration by local ethics committees. Particular attention must be paid to use of the population selected for community consultation. Several studies highlighted the need to consider the use of alternatives to prospective informed consent to enable the conduct of research in emergency departments (EDs) in life-threatening situations. Future research should evaluate children's opinions on this topic.

Enrollment in research under exception from informed consent: the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research (PEER) study

BACKGROUND

Resuscitation research requires an exception from informed consent (EFIC). Despite concerns that patients may find EFIC unacceptable, the views and experiences of patients enrolled in an EFIC study are largely unknown.

METHODS

The Patients' Experience in Emergency Research (PEER) study was nested within the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) for pre-hospital treatment of status epilepticus. PEER included 61 EFIC enrollees or their surrogates from 5 sites. Interviews used a structured, interactive guide focusing on acceptance of EFIC enrollment in RAMPART and existing regulatory protections. Simple statistics were generated, and textual data were analyzed for common themes.

RESULTS

24 enrolled patients and 37 surrogates were successfully interviewed. 49/60 (82%) were glad they or their family member were included in RAMPART; 54/57 (95%) felt research on emergency seizure treatment is important. 43/59 (73%) found their inclusion under EFIC acceptable; 10 (17%) found it unacceptable, and 6 (10%) were neutral. There were no statistically significant interactions between enrollment attitudes and demographic characteristics, though there were trends toward lower acceptance among interviewees who were non-white, less educated, or had prior research experience. The most common concerns related to lack of consent prior to RAMPART enrollment. Positive responses related to perceived medical benefits, recognition of the impracticality of consent, and wanting doctors to do what needs to be done in emergencies. Many participants had difficulty understanding the trial and EFIC.

CONCLUSIONS

Most subjects had positive views of enrollment, and acceptance generally correlated with results of community consultation studies.

Why persons choose to opt out of an exception from informed consent cardiac arrest trial

BACKGROUND

We sought to characterize persons who requested to opt out of an exception from informed consent (EFIC) cardiac arrest trial and their reasons for opting out.

METHODS

At one site of a multi-site, out-of-hospital, cardiac arrest EFIC trial (September 2007 - June 2009), persons who did not want to participate in the study could request an opt-out "NO STUDY" bracelet to prevent trial enrollment. We surveyed all persons who requested a bracelet by phone interview, web or mail. Opt-out bracelets were advertised in all public communication about the study, including community consultation and public disclosure efforts. Survey questions included demographics, Likert scale items about attitudes toward the trial and research in general, plus open-ended questions. We used descriptive statistics for standardized questions and qualitative analysis to identify common themes from open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Sixty bracelets were requested by 50 individuals. Surveys were completed by 46 persons (92% response rate). Seventy percent of respondents agreed emergency research is important, but 87% objected to any research without consent. In the qualitative analysis, 5 overlapping themes emerged: questioning the ethics of EFIC research; concerns about how the study would impact end-of-life preferences; subjective emotions including sarcasm, anger, and allusions to past unethical research; negative reference to unrelated public health controversies; and objections to the study protocol based on misinformation.

CONCLUSIONS

A primary reason for opting out from this EFIC trial was opposition to all research without informed consent, despite stated support for emergency research. Understanding the demographics and beliefs of persons opting out may aid researchers planning EFIC studies and help provide clarity in future EFIC-related community education efforts.

Exception from informed consent for emergency research: consulting the trauma community

BACKGROUND

Research investigating the resuscitation and management of unstable trauma patients is necessary to improve care and save lives. Because informed consent for research is impossible in emergencies, the Federal Drug Administration has established an Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) Policy that mandates "community consultation" as a means of protecting patient autonomy. We hypothesized that the trauma community represents a heterogeneous population whose attitudes regarding EFIC and willingness to participate in emergency research are influenced by status as a patient, family, or geographic community member.

METHODS

In the context of an upcoming trial, trauma patients as well as family and community members were asked to rank statements regarding EFIC and willingness to participate in emergency research using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Higher total scores reflected a more positive attitude regarding EFIC (range, 4-20; neutral = 12) and willingness (range, 21-105, neutral = 63). The influence of demographics, education, and interpersonal violence were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Overall, the 309 participants (trauma patients, n = 172; family, n = 73; community, n = 64) were positive about EFIC (median, 16; interquartile range, [IQR], 14-18) and demonstrated high willingness scores (median, 82; IQR, 76-88.5). EFIC and willingness were not influenced by age, sex, race, or education. Victims of interpersonal violence and their family members had lower EFIC scores than those with other mechanisms (median [IQR], 16 [14-18] vs. 16 [13-16]; p = 0.04) but similar willingness. Although EFIC scores were similar between groups, trauma patients had significantly lower willingness than family (median [IQR], 74 [68-77] vs. 77 [70-85]; p = 0.03) or community members (median [IQR], 76 [70-84]; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Trauma patients, families, and the geographic community expressed a high degree of support for EFIC and willingness to participate in emergency research, although support was influenced by injury mechanism and group status. Consultation efforts for emergency research should extend beyond the geographic community to include trauma victims and their families.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic, level III.

Emergency research: using exception from informed consent, evaluation of community consultations

BACKGROUND

In 1996, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved regulations authorizing an exception from informed consent (EFIC) for research conducted in emergency settings when obtaining prospective informed consent is not possible due to the potential subject's critical illness or injury. The regulations require that investigators conduct community consultation (CC) efforts before initiating a study and require that institutional review boards review the results of CC prior to approving a study. However, little is known about how communities view EFIC research or the CC process.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the views of CC meeting attendees regarding the CC process, their understanding and views of EFIC research relating to the specific research trial under discussion, and their level of trust in physician-investigators.

METHODS

Following CC meetings at two study sites (San Francisco and Atlanta) for the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART), an active comparison, randomized trial of prehospital treatment for status epilepticus, the authors administered a pair of surveys to participants. One survey focused on CC experiences (CC survey) and trust in physician-investigators; the second assessed participants' understanding of EFIC and the RAMPART clinical trial design (EFIC survey).

RESULTS

A total of 317 individuals participated in one of the two most popular types of CC meetings (group meetings and focus group sessions) at both sites. A total of 189 participants (59%) completed the CC survey and trust questions, and 297 (92%) completed the EFIC survey. Of those who completed the CC survey, 173 of 189 (92%) were very satisfied with the meeting, and 174 of 189 (92%) felt that they learned a lot about research at the meeting. A total of 169 of 189 participants (88%) felt that researchers heard the community's concerns, while only 106 of 189 (56%) said researchers would be willing to make changes to the study based on their concerns. Of those who completed the EFIC survey, 261 of 297 (88%) supported the study, 207 of 297 (70%) said they would agree to participate in the study, and 203 of 297 (68%) reported that they would agree to consent a loved one into the study. On a recently validated scale measuring trust in physician-investigators, participants at both sites seemed to have higher levels of trust in physician-investigators than the validation study population.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, members of these two communities expressed satisfaction with the CC session and had relatively high levels of support for the study and trust in physician-investigators.

Ethics committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols

SINCE 1996, U.S. FEDERAL REGULATIONS allow research without informed consent to study emergency conditions, if there is currently no satisfactory treatment for the condition, no time to obtain advance consent from the patient or representative, and if there is community involvement through a public disclosure and community consultation process. REB experiences since then are unknown. We surveyed REB chairpersons at the 126 United States medical schools to quantify reviewed protocols and identify attitudes about the rule, to better understand the rule's impact on REBs. Sixty-nine surveys were returned (55%). Fifty-two respondents reviewing human research had heard of the Rule. Forty-eight percent (25/52) had reviewed such a study; 40% of those had rejected at least one. Seventy-eight percent believe the rule protects human subjects, and 88% feel prepared to implement them. REB views differed from public opinion on how best to enact notification and consultation.

A burn center paradigm to fulfill deferred consent public disclosure and community consultation requirements for emergency care research

INTRODUCTION

To fulfill Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services emergency care research informed consent requirements, our burn center planned and executed a deferred consent strategy gaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to proceed with the clinical study. These federal regulations dictate public disclosure and community consultation unique to acute care research.

OBJECTIVE

Our regional burn center developed and implemented a deferred consent public notification and community consultation paradigm appropriate for a burn study.

METHODS

Published accounts of deferred consent strategies focus on acute care resuscitation practices. We adapted those strategies to design and conduct a comprehensive public notification/community consultation plan to satisfy deferred consent requirements for burn center research.

RESULTS

To implement a robust media campaign we engaged the hospital's public relations department, distributed media materials, recruited hospital staff for speaking engagements, enlisted community volunteers, and developed initiatives to inform "hard-to-reach" populations. The hospital's IRB determined we fulfilled our obligation to notify the defined community.

CONCLUSION

Our communication strategy should provide a paradigm other burn centers may appropriate and adapt when planning and executing a deferred consent initiative.

Ischemic stroke survivors' opinion regarding research utilizing exception from informed consent

INTRODUCTION

'Exception from informed consent for research' (EFIC) is a rigorous procedure regulated by the FDA that requires community assent but allows enrollment without patient or family consent. Recently, several acute stroke trials have explored the use of EFIC to improve enrollment. We obtained ischemic stroke survivors' opinions regarding hypothetical enrollment into a clinical trial at the time of their stroke without personal or proxy consent.

METHODS

During 2005, 460 ischemic stroke patients (or their proxy) who met case criteria were prospectively interviewed and followed. After 2 years, patients were asked to think back to the time of their stroke and indicate whether they would have wished to be enrolled in an acute stroke research study before individual or proxy consent could be obtained, understanding that consent would be sought as soon as possible thereafter, and they rated how agreeable they would have been to acute stroke research with different levels of invasiveness. Predictors of a positive opinion regarding the hypothetical research were analyzed using logistic regression. Variables included in the model were age, race, sex, education, initial NIHSS, modified Rankin Scale prior to stroke and 30 days after stroke, and proxy versus patient responder.

RESULTS

At 2 years after stroke, after excluding patient deaths, missing data or refusals, there were 194 patient/proxy responses included in this analysis. Overall, 72-79% of responses were favorable for chart review or blood draw without consent. The proportions answering agreeably to questions about medications or invasive strategies were smaller (62.9 and 59.8%). Older subjects were less likely to offer an agreeable response regarding use of medications [OR 0.97 per year (95% CI 0.94-0.99)] and invasive procedures [OR 0.97 per year (95% CI 0.94-0.99)]. Nonblacks tended to be more agreeable than blacks to invasive procedures. Men had twice the odds of being agreeable to blood draws than women.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the majority of interviewed ischemic stroke patients were agreeable to being enrolled in acute stroke research with exception from informed consent, although the rates of agreement were lower than we expected among a cohort of patients who had already agreed to research. Older subjects, black race, and women were less likely to agree to blood draws or treatment strategies.

Evidence-based community consultation for traumatic brain injury

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine if geospatial techniques can be used to inform targeted community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD) for a clinical trial requiring emergency exception from informed consent (EFIC).

METHODS

Data from January 2007 to December 2009 were extracted from a Level I trauma center's trauma database using the National Trauma Registry of the American College of Surgeon (NTRACS). Injury details, demographics, geographic codes, and clinical data necessary to match core elements of the clinical trial inclusion criteria (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] 3-12 and blunt head injury) were collected on all patients. Patients' home zip codes were geocoded to compare with population density and clustering analysis.

RESULTS

Over a 2-year period, 179 patients presented with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Mapping the rate and frequency of TBI patients presenting to the trauma center delineated at-risk populations for moderate to severe head injury. Four zip codes had higher incidences of TBI than the rest, with one zip code having a very high rate of 80 per 100,000 population.

CONCLUSIONS

Geospatial techniques and hospital data records can be used to characterize potential subjects and delineate a high-risk population to inform directed CC and public disclosure strategies.

Emergency medical service providers' attitudes and experiences regarding enrolling patients in clinical research trials

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers' attitudes and experiences about enrolling patients in clinical research trials utilizing the federal rules for exception from informed consent. We hypothesized that Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) would have varied attitudes about research using an exception from informed consent which could have an impact on the research.

METHODS AND SETTING

Since January 2007, the EMS system has been participating in a randomized, multi-center interventional trial in which out-of-hospital providers enroll critically injured trauma patients using exception from informed consent.A voluntary, anonymous, written survey was administered to EMS providers during an in-service. The survey included demographics and Likert-type questions about their experiences with and attitudes towards research in general, and research using an exception from informed consent for an out-of-hospital clinical trial.

RESULTS

The response rate was 79.3% (844/1067). Most respondents, 93.3%, agreed that "research in EMS care is important." However, 38.5% also agreed that individual EMTs/paramedics should maintain the personal right of refusal to enroll patients in EMS trials. Fifty-four percent of respondents agreed with the statement that "the right of research subjects to make their own choices is more important than the interests of the general community." In response to statements about the current study, 11.3% agreed that "the study is unethical because the patient cannot consent" and 69.2% responded that they would personally be willing to be enrolled in the study before they were able to give consent if they were seriously injured. Those who had not enrolled a patient into the study (681 respondents) were asked their reasons: 76.8% had not encountered an eligible patient or did not work for an agency that carried the fluid; 4.3% did not have time; 4.1% forgot and 1.1% stated that they were opposed to enrolling patients in studies without their consent.

CONCLUSION

The majority of EMS personnel in one community support EMS research and this specific out-of-hospital clinical trial being conducted under an exception from informed consent. Potential barriers to enrollment were identified. Further study in other systems is warranted to better understand EMS provider perspectives about exception from informed consent research.

Community views on neurologic emergency treatment trials

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We improve our understanding of the community consultation process for acute neurologic emergency trials conducted under the federal regulations for Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) for emergency research.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative study using focus groups to collect data from patients with a previous stroke or brain injury and their families and from young men at risk for traumatic brain injury. Discussions were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for major themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Five focus groups, involving 40 participants, were convened. Major themes included the awareness and understanding of key clinical trial concepts, including prominent concerns about placebo and therapeutic misconception; inability to obtain informed consent and acceptable surrogate decision-making; EFIC in emergency research and whether existing regulations are acceptable; specific trial design problems, including comparison to standard of care versus 2 competing active therapies; and community consultation and representation.

CONCLUSION

In this study sample, EFIC trials were deemed appropriate and acceptable for acute neurologic emergency research. Education, along with open discussion about basic clinical research concepts, disease- and trial-specific information, and potential surrogate decision-making, was essential to determine the acceptability of an EFIC trial. Approval by institutional review boards was highly regarded as a means of human protection and effective community consultation for such trials. A data repository of information gained from similar qualitative research may help investigators and regulators who wish to plan, conduct, review, and provide oversight for acute neurologic emergency trials under EFIC regulations.

Community attitudes towards emergency research and exception from informed consent

OBJECTIVE

To determine public attitudes towards emergency research, exception from informed consent (EFIC) and a specific proposed clinical trial using EFIC.

METHODS

As part of a planned community consultation activity, a survey was conducted at a popular public venue. Participants answered demographic questions and then were asked their opinions on specifically described consent circumstances in emergency research, including the proposed EFIC trial. Multiple logistic and linear regression were used to determine respondent characteristics associated with specific attitudes.

RESULTS

1901 surveys were completed. The majority of respondents supported emergency research (88%) and the concept of surrogate consent by a legally authorized representative (78%). The concept of EFIC was less well supported (35%) but the application of EFIC was more accepted, especially when EFIC was applied to the respondent themselves (51%). The community believed the proposed EFIC study was acceptable (82%); a minority had concerns but most were related to patient safety and not to EFIC. Respondents with less education and lower incomes were less likely to express opinions about the consent and research concepts described.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency research and the proposed EFIC trial is supported in this community. The concept of EFIC is less well supported but is more acceptable when a specific trial is described or when respondents consider EFIC for themselves. Specific respondent characteristics are associated with attitudes about research; this can assist in development of meaningful community consultation activities.

Local media influence on opting out from an exception from informed consent trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

News media are used for community education and notification in exception from informed consent clinical trials, yet their effectiveness as an added safeguard in such research remains unknown. We assessed the number of callers requesting opt-out bracelets after each local media report and described the errors and content within each media report.

METHODS

We undertook a descriptive analysis of local media trial coverage (newspaper, television, radio, and Web log) and opt-out requests during a 41-month period at a single site participating in an exception from informed consent out-of-hospital trial. Two nontrial investigators independently assessed 41 content-based media variables (including background, trial information, graphics, errors, publication information, and assessment) with a standardized, semiqualitative data collection tool. Major errors were considered serious misrepresentation of the trial purpose or protocol, whereas minor errors included misinformation unlikely to mislead the lay reader about the trial. We plotted the temporal relationship between opt-out bracelet requests and media reports. Descriptive information about the news sources and the trial coverage are presented.

RESULTS

We collected 39 trial-related media reports (33 newspaper, 1 television, 1 radio, and 4 blogs). There were 13 errors in 9 (23%) publications, 7 of which were major and 6 minor. Of 384 requests for 710 bracelets, 310 requests (80%) occurred within 4 days after trial media coverage. Graphic timeline representation of the data suggested a close association between media reports about the trial and requests for opt-out bracelets.

CONCLUSION

According to results from a single site, local media coverage for an exception from informed consent clinical trial had a substantial portion of errors and appeared closely associated with opt-out requests.

Perceived challenges to obtaining informed consent for a time-sensitive emergency department study of pediatric status epilepticus: results of two focus groups

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to describe the perspective of research personnel on issues of informed consent in a time-sensitive clinical study under emergency circumstances.

METHODS

The authors convened concurrent focus groups of research staff and investigators involved in a pharmacokinetic study of lorazepam for status epilepticus (SE). Moderators led discussion with open-ended questions on selected issues of parental consent, communication and understanding, patient assent, and comparison to other types of studies. Focus group transcripts were analyzed to identify themes and subthemes from the discussions.

RESULTS

Most themes and subthemes were identified in both research staff and investigator focus groups. Focus group discussion points were categorized into three main themes: barriers to and enablers of informed consent, barriers to and enablers of actual enrollment, and overall ethical concerns about the research. Many of the issues identified were unique to emergency research.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspectives of research staff and investigators enrolling patients in a time-sensitive emergency department study, the authors identified several areas of concern that should be addressed when planning future emergency studies.

Who will participate in acute stroke trials?

BACKGROUND

Despite the high incidence of acute stroke, only a minority of patients are enrolled in acute stroke treatment trials. We aimed to identify factors associated with participation in clinical trials of novel therapeutic agents for acute stroke.

METHODS

Prospective survey of patients with acute stroke <72 hours from onset. A structured interview was administered to the patient or primary decision-maker. If offered participation in an actual acute treatment trial, questions focused on decisions about that trial; otherwise a similar mock trial was proposed. The primary outcome was whether the subject agreed to participate in the proposed trial.

RESULTS

A total of 200 subjects (47% patients, 53% proxies) completed the survey: mean age 63 +/- 14 years, 47% women, 44% white, 50% black. A real acute trial was offered to 22%; others were offered a mock trial. Overall, 57% (95% confidence interval: 50%-64%) of respondents stated they would participate in the proposed acute treatment trial. There were no differences with respect to age, sex, race, educational level, self-assessed stroke severity or stroke type, vascular risk factors, or comorbidities. Misconceptions about key research concepts were found in 50% but did not impact participation. Participation was associated with the perceived risk of the proposed trial intervention (p < 0.001), prior general attitudes about research (p < 0.001), and influences attributed to family, religion, and other personal beliefs (p < 0.001). Patients were more likely to participate than proxy decision-makers (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Demographic factors, clinical factors, and prior knowledge about research have little impact on the decision to participate in acute stroke clinical trials. Preexisting negative attitudes and external influences about research strongly inhibit participation. Patients are more inclined to participate than their proxy decision-makers.

Syndromic Surveillance and Patients as Victims and Vectors

Syndromic surveillance uses new ways of gathering data to identify possible disease outbreaks. Because syndromic surveillance can be implemented to detect patterns before diseases are even identified, it poses novel problems for informed consent, patient privacy and confidentiality, and risks of stigmatization. This paper analyzes these ethical issues from the viewpoint of the patient as victim and vector. It concludes by pointing out that the new International Health Regulations fail to take full account of the ethical challenges raised by syndromic surveillance.

A geospatial analysis of persons opting out of an exception from informed consent out-of-hospital clinical trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

For trials involving exception from informed consent, some IRBs require that community members be allowed to "opt out" prior to enrollment. We tested for geospatial clustering of opt-out requests and the associated census tract characteristics in one study region.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study at a single site of a multicenter exception from informed consent resuscitation trial. We collected and geocoded mailing addresses for persons requesting opt-out bracelets over 16 months, then tested for geospatial clustering using geographic information systems (GIS) analysis. Characteristics for tracts with and without bracelet clustering were compared using univariate tests, multivariable regression, and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis.

RESULTS

We received 395 phone calls requesting 718 bracelets, of which 673 were analyzable. Of 397 census tracts in the region, 208 (52%) had at least one request and 38 (10%) demonstrated clustering. In multivariable models, an increasing proportion of family households (OR .90, 95%CI .85-.93), veterans (OR .91, 95%CI .81-1.02), and renters (OR .96, 95%CI .92-.99) were associated with lower odds of requesting an opt-out bracelet, while census tracts with higher income had higher odds of opting-out (OR 1.07, 95%CI 1.02-1.11). Using CART, the proportion of family households and graduate education identified the majority of opt-out requests by census tracts (cross-validation sensitivity 92%, specificity 56%).

CONCLUSIONS

Opt-out requests for an exception from informed consent trial at one study site were geographically clustered and associated with certain population demographics. These findings may help identify key target groups for community consultation in future trials.

Patients' perceptions of research in emergency settings: a study of survivors of sudden cardiac death

Conditions such as stroke, sudden cardiac death, and major traumatic injury are major causes of morbidity and mortality, and there is a need for clinical research to improve treatment for these conditions. However, because informed consent is often impossible, research in these situations poses ethical concerns. Despite growing literature on the ethics of emergency research, little is known about the views of relevant patient populations regarding research in emergency settings conducted under an exception from informed consent (EFIC). In this qualitative study, survivors of sudden cardiac death (SCD)--recruited from an outpatient cardiology clinic in late 2005--were asked their views on scenarios representing different types of EFIC research. Patients were generally accepting of such research, more than previous studies would have predicted. Their concerns focused primarily on study risks and benefits and less on waiving consent or randomization. EFIC research is of international importance and ethical controversy. This study represents the first attempt to assess views of SCD survivors on this type of research and one of the first to assess patients' views in-depth. Findings indicate broad acceptance of EFIC research among this population and re-focus discussion on what risks are reasonable for non-autonomous subjects. The study also demonstrates potential for valuable input from patients regarding complicated and ethically challenging issues using a method that allows them to develop opinions on unfamiliar issues.

The random dialing survey as a tool for community consultation for research involving the emergency medicine exception from informed consent

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services enacted rules allowing a narrow exception from informed consent for critically ill patients enrolled in emergency research. These include requirements for community consultation prior to trial implementation. Previous studies have noted difficulty in engaging the community. We seek to describe the experience with random dialing surveys as a tool for community consultation across 5 metropolitan regions in the United States.

METHODS

Random dialing surveys were used as part of the community consultation for an out-of-hospital clinical trial sponsored by the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. The survey method was designed to obtain a representative sample of the community according to population demographics and geography. Logistics of survey administration, role of the survey in community consultation, and survey results by population demographics are discussed.

RESULTS

Random dialing surveys were conducted in 5 of 8 US Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium sites. Overall, 70% to 79% of respondents indicated they would be willing to be enrolled in this study. Support for the inclusion of children (aged 15 to 18 years) ranged from 52% to 71%. Respondents aged 18 to 34 years were more willing to participate in the trial than older age groups. Women and racial minorities were less likely to favor the inclusion of minors.

CONCLUSION

Random dialing surveys provide an additional tool to engage the community and obtain a sample of the opinion of the population about research conducted under the emergency exception from informed consent regulations. Similar results were obtained across 5 diverse communities in the United States.

Clinical research without consent in adults in the emergency setting: a review of patient and public views

Background

In emergency research, obtaining informed consent can be problematic. Research to develop and improve treatments for patients admitted to hospital with life-threatening and debilitating conditions is much needed yet the issue of research without consent (RWC) raises concerns about unethical practices and the loss of individual autonomy. Consistent with the policy and practice turn towards greater patient and public involvement in health care decisions, in the US, Canada and EU, guidelines and legislation implemented to protect patients and facilitate acute research with adults who are unable to give consent have been developed with little involvement of the lay public. This paper reviews research examining public opinion regarding RWC for research in emergency situations, and whether the rules and regulations permitting research of this kind are in accordance with the views of those who ultimately may be the most affected.

Methods

Seven electronic databases were searched: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Philosopher's Index, Age Info, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science. Only those articles pertaining to the views of the public in the US, Canada and EU member states were included. Opinion pieces and those not published in English were excluded.

Results

Considering the wealth of literature on the perspectives of professionals, there was relatively little information about public attitudes. Twelve studies employing a range of research methods were identified. In five of the six questionnaire surveys around half the sample did not agree generally with RWC, though paradoxically, a higher percentage would personally take part in such a study. Unfortunately most of the studies were not designed to investigate individuals' views in any depth. There also appears to be a level of mistrust of medical research and some patients were more likely to accept an experimental treatment 'outside' of a research protocol.

Conclusion

There are too few data to evaluate whether the rules and regulations permitting RWC protects – or is acceptable to – the public. However, any attempts to engage the public should take place in the context of findings from further basic research to attend to the apparently paradoxical findings of some of the current surveys.

Public Disclosure in Research with Exception from Informed Consent: The Use of Survey Methods to Assess its Effectiveness

In clinical trials with exception from informed consent, the Final Rule stipulates that investigators inform and consult with the community. A random-digit-dialing survey of 200 individuals assessed the effectiveness of public disclosure via press releases, notices in local newspapers, local radio and television stations and the host hospital's website, as well as a series of community meetings regarding a pending clinical trial of this kind. Results showed a 10% awareness level of the public trial, which is higher than surveys using convenience samples. Understanding of the nature of the trial was generally poor, while opinions about participating in this type of research were more favorable among individuals aware of the trial. Our findings suggest that adherence to the intent of the Final Rule is dependent on uniform guidelines for what constitute effective public disclosure methods and adequate community awareness and understanding and the use of rigorous sampling methods for evaluation.

Ethical implications of time frames in a randomized controlled trial in acute severe traumatic brain injury

OBJECTIVES

To analyze factors determining the time between injury and study drug administration (SDA) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of acute severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to discuss the ethical implications.

METHODS

Time frames prior to SDA, differentiated per country, were analyzed in a recently conducted RCT in severe TBI. Per protocol, the time window for SDA was 6 h after injury. We selected patients for whom written proxy consent (PC) was obtained prior to SDA (n=631).

RESULTS

The time between injury and admission to the neurotrauma center (NTC) varied per country from 1.16 to 2.35 h, but CT scan was obtained on average within 1h of admission. The median time between injury and CT scan was within 3 h in all but one country. The broadest time window was observed between CT scan and obtaining required PC (1.71-2.74 h). The median time between injury and PC varied between countries from 3.75 to 5.00 h. After consent had been obtained, almost all patients subsequently received study drug within 1 h. In 85.3% of all cases time between injury and SDA exceeded 4 h, in 60% 5 h.

CONCLUSIONS

The requirement of written PC causes a significant delay in SDA in TBI. With deferred consent, the first dose of an investigational drug could potentially be administered directly after completion of the admission CT scan, which reduce the time to SDA by 50%. We argue that randomization under deferred consent is ethically defendable for emergency research in severe TBI. Recommendations for patient protection are proposed.

Implementing Emergency Research Requiring Exception From Informed Consent, Community Consultation, and Public Disclosure

Conducting emergency research in the out-of-hospital and emergency department setting is a challenge because of the inability of patients to provide informed consent in many situations. Federal guidelines allowing research under an exception from informed consent for emergency research have been established (21 CRF 50.24). Community consultation and public disclosure, 2 required components of obtaining this exception, are seen by many as a barrier to resuscitation research. This article will provide a brief overview of the history of the exception from informed consent for emergency research and summarize our methods recently used to successfully complete community consultation and public disclosure for a trial evaluating 2 devices used during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a large metropolitan area.

'No Time to be Lost!' Ethical considerations on consent for inclusion in emergency pharmacological research in severe traumatic brain injury in the European Union

Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) remains a major cause of death and disability afflicting mostly young adult males and elderly people, resulting in high economic costs to society. Therapeutic approaches focus on reducing the risk on secondary brain injury. Specific ethical issues pertaining in clinical testing of pharmacological neuroprotective agents in TBI include the emergency nature of the research, the incapacity of the patients to informed consent before inclusion, short therapeutic time windows, and a risk-benefit ratio based on concept that in relation to the severity of the trauma, significant adverse side effects may be acceptable for possible beneficial treatments. Randomized controlled phase III trials investigating the safety and efficacy of agents in TBI with promising benefit, conducted in acute emergency situations with short therapeutic time windows, should allow randomization under deferred consent or waiver of consent. Making progress in knowledge of treatment in acute neurological and other intensive care conditions is only possible if national regulations and legislations allow waiver of consent or deferred consent for clinical trials.

Informed consent in clinical trials in critical care: experience from the PAC-Man Study

OBJECTIVES

To identify the proportion of critically ill patients able to consent to participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and to assess to what extent patient consent and relative assent processes could be conducted according to ethics committee permission.

DESIGN

Descriptive study nested in an RCT.

SETTING

Fifty-six UK intensive care units participating in the PAC-Man trial.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

First 500 patients consecutively enrolled into PAC-Man.

MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS

The outcome measures were patient consent and/or relative assent. Of the 498 patients included, 13 (2.6%) provided consent before randomisation. Of the remaining 485 patients, relative assent was obtained for 394 patients (81.2%), and refused post-randomisation for 3 patients (0.6%). No relatives were available for 15 patients (3.1%), and it was unclear from documentation whether relative assent had been obtained for 73 patients (15.1%). Of the 482 patients who did not provide consent prior to randomisation, 188 (39%) survived. Of these, 175 (93.1%) gave retrospective informed consent, six (3.2%) refused, and seven (3.7%) did not regain mental competency.

CONCLUSIONS

A very small proportion of patients were able to give consent before randomisation. Due to the high in-hospital mortality (60.6%), only around one third of the remaining patients could provide consent retrospectively. This study demonstrates difficulties experienced in obtaining consent from critically ill patients to participate in medical research and raises important issues about the ethical basis of the consent process in critical care.

Conducting research using the emergency exception from informed consent: the Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial experience

BACKGROUND

The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial, a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing two prehospital resuscitation strategies, was conducted under the regulations for exception from informed consent (21CFR50.24) in 24 communities in North America. These regulations place additional requirements for human subject protection on investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including conducting community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD).

OBJECTIVE

To describe the IRB approval process at study sites and the number and types of community consultation and public disclosure activities conducted.

METHODS

The 24 study sites in the United States and Canada submitted IRB applications, CC and PD plans, and a structured report on IRB process and investigator perceptions to the Clinical Trial Center at the University of Washington.

RESULTS

The primary IRBs for all 24 trial sites and a total of 101 IRBs approved the study. The median interval from submission to approval was 108 days (IQR 43-196), and the mean number of revisions was two (range 0-7). Investigators conducted nearly 12,000 activities to achieve CC and PD; activities varied greatly from site to site in both type and quantity.

CONCLUSION

The length of time to obtain IRB approval and the extent of community consultation and public disclosure varied greatly among trial sites in meeting the current regulations for conducting emergency research with exception from informed consent. This suggests that more specific guidance may be useful and that determination of effective strategies for community consultation and public disclosure is needed.