Implementation of community consultation for waiver of informed consent in emergency research: one Institutional Review Board's experience.

BACKGROUND: This article describes how one Institutional Review Board (IRB) chose to implement the issue of waiver of consent for a research study involving brain trauma victims brought to an emergency department. METHODS: Presentations were conducted in the state of Mississippi among cultural and ethnic groups representative of Mississippi's demographic composition. Individuals from the neurotrauma research team, including neurosurgeons and nurse study coordinators, conducted all of the presentations. One IRB member served as an objective "community liaison" and attended all presentations. This individual administered evaluation forms to attendees that measured their levels of comprehension and acceptance for the use of waiver of consent in the brain trauma study. RESULTS: All of the 137 attendees in 7 community consultation meetings gave their approval for the use of "waiver of consent." Continued community consultations are planned for the duration of the brain trauma study. CONCLUSION: Based on our experience, we conclude that in collaborating with local IRBs, research teams can successfully develop strategies for obtaining "acceptable community consultations" as required by regulatory mandates. We suggest that standardized community consultation guidelines be developed for obtaining waivers of informed consent in emergency research. Such criteria should form the basis for local IRBs to obtain their respective community consultations.     

Research without Consent: Community Perspectives from the Community VOICES Study

Objective: To explore community attitudes toward the federal regulations that allow investigators to conduct emergency research without obtaining informed consent from participants. Methods: Focus‐group participants were recruited from residential sites in New York City that were enrolled in the Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial. The PAD Trial, a National Institutes of Health–funded, randomized trial in which laypersons were trained to treat cardiac arrest, was granted an exception from informed consent under these rules. Community residents and those who had been trained as lay responders in the PAD Trial were asked about the ethical issues raised by the conduct of research without consent (RWC), their definition of community, and appropriate methods of community consultation regarding RWC studies. Grounded theory content analyses were conducted on focus‐group data. Results: Seventeen (40%) men and 25 (60%) women from 15 buildings participated in six focus groups: four in English; two in Spanish. Definitions of “community” varied widely among and across groups; no strategy for community consultation was consistently endorsed by the participants. There were significant support and occasional adamant opposition to conducting RWC; participants often recounted specific personal experiences as the basis for both positive and negative opinions. Individuals with negative attitudes toward RWC often voiced strong support for specific RWC scenarios. Conclusions: There is no consensus regarding the definition of “community” or appropriate methods of consultation. Community members' attitudes toward RWC are often shaped by their personal experiences, and their general attitudes often differ from their reactions to specific RWC protocols.     

Exception from Informed Consent: Viewpoint of Institutional Review Boards—Balancing Risks to Subjects, Community Consultation, and Future Directions

Differences in interpretation of the Final Rule for exception from informed consent (EFIC) requirements for emergency research result in inconsistencies in implementation and difficulties for some institutional review boards (IRBs) to approve such research. During a consensus workshop organized by the editorial board of Academic Emergency Medicine, participants discussed how IRBs balance the risks to human subjects in EFIC research, the conduct of community consultation and its role in IRB decision making, and future directions to improve and research EFIC effects. Areas of consensus and diversity of opinion were identified. During the workshop, the National Institutes of Health model of consensus building was used to develop statements pertaining to specific questions of the effects, directions, implementation, and ultimate goals for emergency research using EFIC. The program was composed of an overview of the history and issues related to EFIC or Final Rule research and presentations of viewpoints of experts in this area of research. A final consensus was developed regarding the major topics, including IRB perspective, effective community consultation (often considered the main difficulty in implementing EFIC research), and goals for future directions and research on the topic. Roundtable discussions and breakout sessions involving interested parties were used as a format. In regard to how IRBs balance risks, by consensus it was agreed the regulations stipulate that EFIC studies must involve treatment that is unproven or unsatisfactory. The committee agreed that resuscitation rates are currently unsatisfactory, and thus current treatments are unsatisfactory. Many treatments currently used as standard care have never been proven to be effective. IRBs and the public need education that resuscitation research is needed. The same can be said for other conditions to which this rule applies. Because IRB expertise differs across the country, a group of peer reviewers to act as consultants should be available to help IRBs determine if current treatment for a condition is unproven or unsatisfactory. In regard to community consultation, the experiences of others are important and helpful as guidance. The amount and formats of community consultation should correspond to the amount of risk involved in the study proposed. In regard to future directions, communities should be asked how they define “success” of community consultation and public disclosure. Research on community attitudes is critical. Ways to continue/add to research include the following: research including major National Institutes of Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding acquisition for evaluation of the clinical impact of EFIC research; education for research funding agencies about emergency research, including current outcomes (e.g., survival rates); participation of emergency medicine researchers in meetings of research ethicists/IRB members (Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research/Applied Research Ethics National Association); publication of experiences and of the effects of EFIC research; future update meetings such as this one at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine meeting; and more membership on IRBs of emergency physicians. While IRBs must approve EFIC research based on their own local environment, additional guidelines from regulatory agencies may be helpful. In general, current treatments for EFIC conditions are unsatisfactory and many are unproven. A group of peer reviewers can act as consultants to IRBs that do not have this expertise.     

Practical and Ethical Considerations for Using Social Media in Community Consultation and Public Disclosure Activities

Social media are becoming increasingly integrated into both the clinical and the research dimensions of emergency medicine. They can provide methods for sharing crucial information to targeted individuals or groups in a rapid fashion. As a result, investigators conducting emergency research under the exception from prospective informed consent requirements are beginning to turn to social media platforms as they engage in required community consultation and public disclosure activities before their research begins. At present, there are limited data regarding how effectively social media have been used for performing those consultation and disclosure activities. This article offers investigators four specific areas to consider before using social media in consultation and outreach efforts. First, understand the forms of outreach social media platforms can provide. Second, recognize how those outreach methods relate to the specific goals of community consultation and public disclosure. Third, consider whether or not the intended audiences of community consultation and public disclosure will be available via social media. Finally, think about how social media outreach efforts will be measured and assessed before consultation and disclosure activities are under way.     

Communicating with Communities about Emergency Research

The challenge of effectively communicating with communities about research is particularly salient for investigators who are conducting emergency research with an exception from informed consent. The authors discuss the ethical basis for the community consultation requirement and describe the nature and extent of the consultative process required to achieve these ethical purposes. The findings of the consensus conference are summarized as follows. 1) The requirements for community consultation and public disclosure for exception from informed consent studies serve important ethical purposes and should be retained. 2) Community consultation allows investigators and institutional review boards to obtain input from the community regarding planned research. The process serves to facilitate understanding, promote trust, ensure justice, and protect research participants. 3) Community consultation is a process that requires active participation by community members; however, it does not require their approval, consent, or consensus. The practical challenges involved in conducting meaningful community consultation are also discussed: defining the community and its appropriate representatives, methods to actively engage the community, the lack of uniformity among institutional review boards in required community consultation activities, and the lack of measures to evaluate the adequacy and appropriateness of community consultation. The recommendations of the consensus conference regarding future research about community consultation are summarized. Priorities include identifying best practices; defining effectiveness and developing measures to evaluate community consultation; evaluating alternative models and potential infrastructures to facilitate, conduct, and/or oversee effective community consultation processes; and developing educational modules for community members to empower their active participation in discussions about emergency research in their communities.     

A study of warning letters issued to institutional review boards by the United States Food and Drug Administration

PURPOSE: This study explores the ethical issues contained in warning letters (WLs) issued to institutional review boards (IRBs) by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: The online FDA Warning Letter Index was reviewed for letters issued to IRBs in the United States under the violation categories "Institutional Review Board" and "IRB" for the period January 1997 through July 2004. The resultant letters were evaluated for violations in 4 regulatory themes: having and following written procedures for research review; documentation of research review; IRB membership and conflict of interest; and informed consent. RESULTS: Fifty-two (52) FDA WLs were issued to IRBs during this period. Hospital/medical centre IRBs received the most letters (n = 34), followed by university IRBs (n = 9) and private IRBs (n = 9). The most common regulatory violations were failure to have and follow adequate written procedures about how the review of research is conducted (50 WLs); failure to prepare and maintain adequate documentation of IRB activities (47 WLs); and failure to provide adequate continuing review of approved studies (36 WLs). Nineteen WLs were issued for consent form issues. CONCLUSIONS: Warning letters are informative with regard to clinical research regulations and research subject protection. The content of these letters consistently indicates weaknesses in review and documentation activities of audited IRBs, potentially signalling similar issues among IRBs across the United States. Our findings, in a setting of overburdened IRBs who, in general, passively monitor studies, raise concerns about study oversight and optimal protection of research subjects.     

An Ethical Analysis of Exception from Informed Consent Regulations

Federal regulations enacted in 1996 allow clinical research with an exception from informed consent in select emergency circumstances. Such research is only permitted when the therapy may directly benefit the research participant and it is not possible to conduct the research with informed consent. Among others, protective mechanisms include a process of community consultation and public disclosure and the establishment of a mandatory data safety monitoring board. Although the regulations do not preserve the right of self‐determination of the research participant, the author argues that they do provide an ethical means to advance the science of resuscitation.     

Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Clinical Trial

Multicenter clinical trials require approval by multiple local institutional review boards (IRBs). The Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration mailed a clinical trial protocol to its U.S. investigators and 44 IRBs ultimately reviewed it. OBJECTIVE: To describe IRB responses to one standard protocol and thereby gain insight into the advantages and disadvantages of local IRB review. METHODS: Two surveys were mailed to participants, with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents. Survey 1 was mailed to 82 investigators across North AMERICA: Survey 2 was mailed to investigators from 44 medical centers in 17 U.S. states. Survey 1 asked about each investigator's local IRB (e.g., frequency of meetings, membership), whereas survey 2 asked about IRB queries and concerns related to the submitted clinical trial. RESULTS: Both surveys had 100% response rate. Investigators submitted applications a median of 58 days (interquartile range [IQR], 40--83) after receipt of the protocol, and IRB approval took an additional 38 days (IQR, 26--62). Although eight applications were approved with little or no changes, IRBs requested an average of 3.5 changes per site. Changes involved study logistics and supervision for 45%, the research process for 43%, and the consent form for 91%. Despite these numerous requests, all eventually approved the basic protocol, including inclusion criteria, intervention, and data collection. CONCLUSIONS: The IRBs showed extreme variability in their initial responses to a standard protocol, but ultimately all gave approval. Almost all IRBs changed the consent form. A national, multicenter IRB process might streamline ethical review and warrants further consideration.     

Using the Exception from Informed Consent Regulations in Research

This article reflects the proceedings of a breakout session, “Using the Regulations in Research” at the 2005 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, “Ethical Conduct of Resuscitation Research.” There have been two organized studies, and a number of anecdotal reports, describing the decline in cardiac arrest resuscitation research in the United States since the implementation of the Final Rule. Paradis and colleagues found that the volume of human cardiac arrest research published in the United States was significantly less in a four‐year period after the Final Rule was adopted as compared to the earlier period. Nichol and colleagues reported that both the absolute number of US‐based randomized cardiac arrest trials and the proportion of US‐based trials (vs. foreign trials, based on the mailing address of the first author) decreased by about 15% annually. Despite the concern about a negative impact, there are at least five published trials, one in progress and one in planning that have been or are being conducted under the regulations. Those completed include the Diaspirin Cross‐Linked Hemoglobin, Public Access Defibrillation, Multicenter Vest CPR, Brain‐CPR, and Pre‐Hospital Treatment of Status Epilepticus trials. Reports of how investigators met the regulations and their experience in doing so are reviewed. A summary table of the federal regulations is provided. Participants discussed what additional information and research about using the regulations would be helpful for the promotion of quality resuscitation and emergency care research in the United States. Areas suggested for further investigation include: impact on the quality as well as quantity of such research; current level of understanding of the regulations by investigators, regulatory/IRB personnel and potential subjects (the general public); costs incurred: additional time required for preparation, approval and conducting community consultation and public disclosure; impact on research on non–life‐threatening conditions; value and cost of a registry; use of a standard reporting template for issues regarding meeting the requirements in individual clinical trials; whether more specific guidance would be helpful or restrictive; what constitutes effective community consultation and public disclosure; and whether titration of community consultation and public disclosure based on the risk of the proposed intervention to subjects is feasible and acceptable.     

Attitudes of Emergency Department Patients and Visitors Regarding Emergency Exception from Informed Consent in Resuscitation Research, Community Consultation, and Public Notification

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.     

The Research on Community Consultation: An Annotated Bibliography

Community consultation is a required element of research studies that use a waiver of or exception from informed consent. Its intent is to provide an additional patient safeguard in emergency research circumstances when prospective informed consent is not possible. Investigators have reported that community consultation may be the most difficult aspect in implementing research trials using a wavier of or exception from informed consent. This article presents a brief overview of the sparse literature available on the process of community consultation since the inception of the current emergency research regulations. To determine if the process is meeting its goals, more research will be required.     

Streamlining IRB review in multisite trials through single-study IRB Cooperative Agreements: experience of the Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET)

With their extensive data and specimen repositories, clinical trials are a long-term, valuable resource to health researchers. However, assuring protection of participants' rights can be challenging, particularly when such trials are conducted at multiple sites with multiple Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). One little-used mechanism that can streamline IRB review in multisite trials while maintaining participants' protections is the single-study IRB Cooperative Agreement. This agreement is entirely different from reciprocity agreements between institutions. Beginning in 1996, the Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial established single-study IRB Cooperative Agreements among its performance sites, which reduced the average time to complete IRB approval from over 6 months to 1 month for each of many substudies. We describe our experience and make recommendations for other multisite clinical trials.     

An Approach to Community Consultation Prior to Initiating an Emergency Research Study Incorporating a Waiver of Informed Consent

OBJECTIVES: In November 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) enacted rules allowing a narrow exception to the requirement for prospective informed consent when enrolling critically ill patients in clinical research studies of emergency treatments. These rules require that, prior to initiation of the study, the applicable institutional review board (IRB) assess the acceptability of the proposed research study to members of the community in which the research will be conducted. Specifically, the IRB must perform community consultation-a process during which community members learn about the proposed research and communicate their opinions regarding its acceptability to investigators or IRB representatives. The FDA and DHHS rules do not define specific acceptable methods for performing this community consultation. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility and utility of one proposed method for performing such community consultation. METHODS: Parents of children being seen for minor traumatic injuries in three pediatric EDs were asked to participate in a study regarding informed consent. After consent, an instructor described to the parent a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of phenytoin for the prophylaxis of posttraumatic seizures in children with severe closed head trauma. All parents were then asked whether they would have consented for their own child's participation, if their child had suffered such head injury. The parents were further asked to explain the reason(s) for their responses. RESULTS: Parents of 227 children (children's mean +/- SD age 8.0 +/- 4.8 years, 57% male) were interviewed. Sixty-six percent of parents (149/227) stated they would give consent for their child's participation. Of the 149 consenting parents, 85% (126/149) cited potential benefit to their child, 72% (107/149) cited potential benefit to other children, and 60% (90/149) cited furthering medical knowledge. Of the 78 nonconsenting parents (34% of total), 54% (42/78) cited fear of adverse effects, 39% (30/78) did not want their child to be a research subject in general, 27% (21/78) believed they needed to discuss participation with family members who were unavailable, and 26% (20/78) stated they were unable to decide unless they were in the actual situation. Parental ethnicity and household income were found to influence the consent decision, while the parent's gender, religion, language, and educational level were not associated with the consent decision. CONCLUSIONS: Community consultation regarding the acceptability of an emergency research protocol can be obtained via interview techniques in the ED. This methodology may allow investigators to obtain data on opinion from a targeted community for IRB consideration during the review of emergency research studies proposing a waiver of informed consent.     

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.     

Does the Emergency Exception from Informed Consent Process Protect Research Subjects?

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.     

Neuroscience nursing research: human subjects considerations.

Permission to conduct research must be obtained from all institutions which will be involved. The special nature of our target population may result in a particularly detailed review. Specific suggestions to facilitate approval to conduct research address utilization of institutional personnel, informed consent and concerns of the IRB. Seek guidance from knowledgeable employees. You can obtain a great deal of useful information from IRB secretaries and nurses who are engaged in research in the target institution. Informing potential subjects about the research is critical, and is best done using strategies such as assuring the language used enhances comprehension. Finally, be prepared to discuss concerns of the IRB. The ability of impaired subjects to communicate with you, the researcher, seems to be of particular concern to many IRBs.