Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Neurocrit Care ; 32(1): 340-347, 2020 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31571176

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The process of informed consent in National Institutes of Health randomized, placebo-controlled trials is poorly studied. There are several issues regarding informed consent in emergency neurologic trials, including a shared decision-making process with the patient or a legally authorized representative about overall risks, benefits, and alternative treatments. METHODS: To evaluate the informed consent process, we collected best and worst informed consent practice information from a National Institutes of Health trial and used this in medical simulation videos to educate investigators at multiple sites to improve the consent process. Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage Phase III (CLEAR III) (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00784134) studied the effect of intraventricular alteplase (n = 251) versus saline (placebo) injections (n = 249) for intraventricular hemorrhage reduction. Reasons for ineligibility (including refusing to consent) for all screen failures were analyzed. The broadcasted presentation outlined best practices for doctor-patient interactions during the consenting process, as well as anecdotal, study-specific reasons for consent refusal. Best and worst consent elements were then incorporated into a simulation video to enhance the informed consent process. This video was disseminated to trial sites as a webinar around the midpoint of the trial to improve the consent process. Pre- and post-intervention consent refusals were compared. RESULTS: During the trial, 10,538 patients were screened for eligibility, of which only three were excluded due to trial timing. Pre-intervention, 77 of 5686 (1.40%) screen eligible patients or their proxies refused consent. Post-intervention, 55 of 4849 (1.10%) refused consent, which was not significantly different from pre-intervention (P = 0.312). The incidence of screen failures was significantly lower post-intervention (P = 0.006), possibly due to several factors for patient exclusion. CONCLUSION: The informed consent process for prospective randomized trials may be enhanced by studying and refining best practices based on trial-specific plans and patient concerns particular to a study.


Asunto(s)
Toma de Decisiones Conjunta , Consentimiento Informado , Apoderado , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Negativa a Participar , Hemorragia Cerebral Intraventricular/tratamiento farmacológico , Ensayos Clínicos Fase III como Asunto , Urgencias Médicas , Fibrinolíticos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Inyecciones Intraventriculares , Evaluación de Procesos, Atención de Salud , Activador de Tejido Plasminógeno/uso terapéutico
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA