RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The most effective means of community consultation is unknown. We evaluated differences in community opinion elicited by varying means of consultation. METHODS: We compared responses with a cross-sectional, standardized survey administered as part of the community consultation for the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) hypertonic saline trial. Surveys were obtained from four sources: two sets of random-digit dialing phone surveys, paper surveys from community meetings, and web-based surveys. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-one usable surveys were obtained: 186 from phone survey 1; 86 from phone survey 2 (using slightly modified wording); 54 from community meetings (8 from open forums; 46 from existing meetings); and 35 from a web site. Demographics were similar between the sets except that the surveys obtained from community meetings had the highest minority representation (63.3% nonwhite). Community meeting respondents were more willing than phone or web respondents to receive experimental treatment for themselves (93.6% vs. 77.5% overall) and for a family member (95.2% vs. 74.9% overall). The web-based survey generated the least feedback and had the most higher-income responders. CONCLUSIONS: Responses varied by method of consultation. The open forums were very poorly attended, despite heavy advertising by investigators. Furthermore, attendees at those meetings provided the least objection to proposed research without informed consent. Phone surveys elicited the most objections. We suggest that an efficient method of community consultation is random-digit dialing supplemented with discussion at already scheduled events to target special populations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Emergency exception to informed consent regulation was introduced to provide a venue to perform research on subjects in emergency situations before obtaining informed consent. For a study to proceed, institutional review boards (IRBs) need to determine if the regulations have been met. AIM: To determine IRB members' experience reviewing research protocols using emergency exception to informed consent. METHODS: This qualitative research used semistructured telephone interviews of 10 selected IRB members from around the US in the fall of 2003. IRB members were chosen as little is known about their views of exception to consent, and part of their mandate is the protection of human subjects in research. Interview questions focused on the length of review process, ethical and legal considerations, training provided to IRB members on the regulations, and experience using community consultation and notification. Content analysis was performed on the transcripts of interviews. To ensure validity, data analysis was performed by individuals with varying backgrounds: three emergency physicians, an IRB member and a layperson. RESULTS: Respondents noted that: (1) emergency exception to informed consent studies require lengthy review; (2) community consultation and notification regulations are vague and hard to implement; (3) current regulations, if applied correctly, protect human subjects; (4) legal counsel is an important aspect of reviewing exception to informed-consent protocols; and (5) IRB members have had little or no formal training in these regulations, but are able to access materials needed to review such protocols. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that IRB members find emergency exception to informed consent studies take longer to review than other protocols, and that community consultation and community notification are the most difficult aspect of the regulations with which to comply but that they adequately protect human subjects.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Although subject protection is the cornerstone of medical ethics, when considered in the context of research using emergency exception from informed consent, its success is debatable. The participants of a breakout session at the 2005 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussed the issues surrounding subject protection and advanced the following recommendations. 1) There are no outcome measures that define "protection"; therefore, it is not currently known whether or not subjects are protected under the current rules. 2) Care must be taken to protect not only the individual from harm during research but also to protect society from unregulated research in other countries and an inability to appropriately advance medical knowledge. 3) Some surrogate markers/methods of protection whose efficacies are debatable include data safety monitoring board activity, the community consultation and public notification (CC/PN) process, and institutional review board approval. 4) Minimal-risk studies should be held to different standards of protection than those that involve more significant risk to the subject. 5) A handful of studies have been published regarding community consultation and notification, and the majority are case studies. Those that are specifically designed to discover the most successful methods are hindered by a lack of formal outcomes measures and tend to have negative results. 6) Follow-up data from the CC/PN process should be disclosed to the Food and Drug Administration and incorporated into study designs. 7) Focus groups and/or random-digit dialing have been suggested as promising methods for fulfilling the CC/PN requirements. 8) Studies need to be funded and performed that formally investigate the best means of CC/PN. 9) More funding for this research should be a priority in the emergency medicine and critical care communities. More data regarding terminated studies should be made available to the research community. 10) Quantifiable markers of success for CC/PN must be validated so that research may determine the most successful methods. 11) Data regarding subjects' and family members' experiences with exception from informed consent studies need to be obtained.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine believes that protection of human subjects is vital in emergency medicine research and that, whenever feasible, informed consent is at the heart of that protection. At the same time, the emergency setting presents unique barriers to informed consent both because of the time frame in which the research is performed and because patients in the emergency department are a vulnerable population. This report reviews the concept of informed consent, empirical data on patients' cognitive abilities during an emergency, the federal rules allowing exemption from consent under certain circumstances, issues surrounding consent forms, and the new Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations as they relate to research. The authors conclude that, in many circumstances, informed consent is possible if the researcher is diligent and takes time to adequately explain the study to the potential subject. In cases in which it is possible to obtain consent, precautions must be taken to ensure that subjects have decision-making capacity and are offered time to have their questions answered and their needs met. Sometimes resuscitation and other emergency medicine research must be conducted without the ability to obtain consent. In these cases, special protections of subjects under the exception from consent guidelines must be followed. Protection of research subjects is the responsibility of every researcher in emergency medicine.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Emergency medicine and its academic teaching programs face an ethical dilemma surrounding the question of practicing procedures on the newly dead. For many years, procedures have been practiced on the newly dead, but few institutions have had policies addressing the practice. This article considers the ethical arguments both for and against practicing procedures on the newly dead without consent, reviews the empirical studies on the subject, and presents the positions of other professional societies, before concluding with the position of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM). SAEM strongly encourages all emergency medicine training programs to develop a policy and make that policy available to the institution, educators, trainees, and the public. The practice should not occur behind closed doors or on an ad hoc basis without clearly articulated guidelines. With improvements in technology, including patient simulation and virtual reality, the need for the practice may decrease, but there is no current evidence that is compelling regarding the best methods of teaching procedural skills. Given the importance of protecting trust in the profession of medicine and the existing evidence that the public would expect that consent be obtained, SAEM recommends that families be asked for consent prior to practicing procedures on the newly dead.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess public views on emergency exception to informed consent in resuscitation research, public awareness of such studies, and effective methods of community consultation and public notification. METHODS: A face-to-face survey was conducted in two academic Level I trauma center emergency departments (EDs) in Oregon and Minnesota from June through August 2001. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty people completed the survey, with an 82% response rate. The mean age of the respondents was 41 years (range 18-95) with a standard deviation of 14.5; 46% were female and 64% white. Most (88%) believed that research subjects should be informed prior to being enrolled, while 49% believed enrolling patients without prior consent in an emergency situation would be acceptable and 70% (369) would not object to be entered into such a study without providing prospective informed consent. Informing and consulting the community as a substitute for patient consent in emergency research was thought to be reasonable by 45% of the respondents. Most respondents would prefer to be informed about a study using emergency exception from informed consent by radio and television media (42%). Two hundred fifty-eight respondents (49%) stated they would attend a community meeting; the less educated were more likely to attend than those with college degrees (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.85, p = 0.008). However, only 5% knew of ongoing studies in their community using emergency exception from informed consent. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents disagreed with foregoing prospective informed consent for research participation even in emergency situations; however, many would be willing to participate in studies using emergency exception from informed consent. Most respondents would not attend community meetings, and would prefer to rely upon the media for information. Very few were aware of emergency exception from informed consent studies in their community. This suggests that current methods of community notification may not be effective.

Asunto(s)