Community Consultation Methods in a Study Using Exception to Informed Consent

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, andweb-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); and35 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) andfor a family member (95.2% vs. 74.9% overall). The web-based survey generated the least feedback andhad 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.     

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.     

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.     

Understanding Exception from Informed Consent in Planned Emergency Research

Many of the current accepted treatment practices provided to patients in the first critical hour after a traumatic injury, stroke, or cardiac arrest have not been rigorously tested in clinical research trials. The inability to obtain informed consent is often a barrier to research in emergency, time-sensitive situations in which the patient is not able to provide informed consent nor is their family member immediately available to provide consent on behalf of the patient. Planned emergency research, often with exception from informed consent, is a type of research study that involves a patient with a life-threatening medical condition that requires urgent interventions, wherein the current treatments may be unproven or suboptimal, and who, because of their current condition, is unable to provide informed consent. This article summarizes the necessary components for using exception from informed consent in planned emergency research. Understanding the research design, particularly research processes specific to time-critical emergency situations, will ensure that the care provided by stretcher-side emergency nurses will result in optimal patient outcomes and is an integral aspect of emergency nursing practice.     

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.     

Research Conditions That Qualify for Emergency Exception from Informed Consent

Medical research involving critically ill and injured subjects unable to provide informed consent can only be conducted under federal regulations that attempt to balance the need to develop lifesaving treatments with protection of research subjects' rights. Regulators, researchers, and medical ethicists have all struggled to define the conditions under which an emergency exception from informed consent is appropriate. Although research has been successfully conducted under the current regulations, confusion remains regarding the meaning of the regulations, the applicable conditions, and the best ways to balance the needs of future patients and the rights of research subjects. In May 2005, at the Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference “Ethical Conduct of Resuscitation Research,” a breakout session was held on the research conditions that qualify for the emergency exception from informed consent process. Several recommendations emerged: 1) The definition of “life‐threatening condition” should be broadly interpreted to include serious disability as well as death. 2) Existing therapies should be considered “unsatisfactory,” even if partially effective, when serious risk of morbidity or mortality remains even with the best available treatment or when the adverse effects of the best available treatment are serious. 3) Research with the emergency exception should be performed only if sufficient evidence exists that the proposed intervention has a reasonable chance of benefit. 4) More evaluation is needed to determine the degree to which the current rules impede research. 5) Application of the current regulatory framework for abbreviated or waived consent in emergency research should be encouraged. 6) Further study should also address variability among institutional review boards, the goals of community involvement, and how best to engage and educate the public in research efforts using emergency exception from informed consent.     

Exception from Informed Consent Enrollment in Emergency Medical Research: Attitudes and Awareness

Objectives
To explore attitudes surrounding exception from informed consent enrollment into research studies. In addition, the authors sought to determine the level of awareness of such an ongoing study among potential subjects, as defined by their presence in an emergency department (ED).
Methods
A convenience sample of urban academic ED patients and visitors was surveyed during a visit regarding their attitudes and awareness of an emergency exception from informed consent, blood-substitute trial ongoing in the community.
Results
There was a 13% refusal rate, and 32% of those approached had characteristics that met exclusion criteria. There were 497 surveys analyzed. There was a predominance of women, Caucasians, and persons with at least some college education. Only 39 (8%) of respondents reported awareness of the ongoing blood substitute trial, and only 19 (4%) were able to list a risk or benefit of participation. Education, income, and age were not associated with reported awareness. Male gender, younger age, awareness of the existing exception from informed consent study, and being married were associated with greater acceptability for such enrollment practices.
Conclusions
The overall awareness of an ongoing exception from informed consent trial after community consultation and notification was low. A population with potential for enrollment in such a study did not demonstrate a high degree of acceptance of such practices. There were differences among certain demographic groups in the degree of acceptance. These differences may guide institutional review boards and investigators in community-consultation strategies for future waiver of or exception from informed consent studies.     

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.     

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.     

Resuscitation Research Involving Vulnerable Populations: Are Additional Protections Needed for Emergency Exception from Informed Consent?

The application of basic ethical principles to resuscitation research and other research in the emergency and critical care settings presents a particular challenge. The emergency exception from informed consent (EFIC) rule (21 CFR 50.24 and 45 CFR 46.101[i]) addresses a particular vulnerability: that which occurs when persons cannot consent due to acute loss of decisional capacity. The question arises as to whether populations defined as “vulnerable” are unique within studies to which EFIC applies. This report details the proceedings of a breakout session of the 2005 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, “Ethical Conduct of Resuscitation Research,” that dealt with this issue. Topics addressed were 1) the applicability of the term “vulnerable” in research using EFIC; 2) the relationship between vulnerability, exploitability, and capacity; 3) the significance of vulnerability in research design; 4) the adaptation of the informed consent process to the emergency setting; and 5) the role of the institutional review board. Ten consensus recommendations emerged from the discussion. Of particular importance was the endorsement of the idea that research using EFIC is as important in vulnerable populations as in the general population and that the systematic exclusion of vulnerable populations from resuscitation research is inappropriate.     

Current Status of Research on the Federal Guidelines for Performing Research Using an Exception from Informed Consent

In order to set the stage for the later discussion of future directions, this Consensus Conference began by reviewing some of the existing research on conducting resuscitation studies using an exception from informed consent. That research is described in this article. The authors conclude that, based on the experiences reported by researchers and institutional review boards, resuscitation research may be ethically and legally conducted under the current regulations, but such research requires substantial effort, financial resources, and personnel. Federal regulations have set the bar appropriately high, and this may pose significant difficulties for small sponsors and individual investigators. However, further study of the experiences of subjects, researchers, and the regulatory process is warranted.     

The Informed Consent Process and the Use of the Exception to Informed Consent in the Clinical Trial of Diaspirin

In the clinical trial of diaspirin crosslinked hemoglobin (DCLHb), optimal therapy required the immediate enrollment of patients with severe, uncompensated, traumatic hemorrhagic shock. When it was not feasible to obtain prospective consent, an exception to informed consent was used according to FDA regulation 21 CFR 50.24. Objectives: To examine the informed consent process and the use of the consent exception and consent to continue (CTC), and to describe the patients for whom this process was used. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, single-blinded efficacy trial of DCLHb as an adjunct to standard therapy in the treatment of severe, traumatic hemorrhagic shock. Patients with unstable vital signs or a critical base deficit were treated, with a primary study endpoint of 28-day mortality. Results: During the 11-month study period, 112 patients were randomized in 18 U.S. trauma centers, and data from 98 of the infused patients were analyzed. Prospective consent was obtained from two patients, three family members, and one legally authorized representative (LAR) (6%). Consent to continue was requested for 89 patients (89%), and full participation was granted for 87 of these patients (98%). Consent to continue was provided by 54 (98%) of the 55 patients approached. The mean number of days for family/LAR CTC was 1.1 ± 3.8 days, and 50% of the time it was obtained on the day of study enrollment. Patient CTC was obtained in an average of 13 ± 23 days, with a median of four days. Patients treated in this protocol were more likely to have sustained penetrating trauma than the overall trauma patient population treated in these trauma centers (44% vs 21%, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Informed consent in this study of an emergent therapy most often involved the use of the consent exception and consent to continue, the latter of which occurred in a timely manner. Nearly all of those who were approached for CTC approved full participation in the study, suggesting acceptance of the process outlined in the new regulations. Patients treated in a hemorrhagic shock clinical trial may differ from the general trauma patient population.     

Researchers' Understanding of the Federal Guidelines for Waiver of and Exception from Informed Consent

The survival of patients who present to the emergency department with severe injury or illness is dismal. Resuscitation researchers are interested in advancing the science of resuscitation, and clinical studies must be conducted to determine the best treatment protocols. These studies must reflect good science and must balance individual patient autonomy and safety with scientific progress that benefits society as a whole. Researchers find the present federal guidelines on waiver of and exception from informed consent to be time consuming and expensive. They see variability in the requirements as interpreted by institutional review boards. There is confusion regarding the requirements for public notification and response to community consultation. They believe that the majority of the public, as well as health care professionals, want resuscitation research to progress, but a minority of people and governmental regulators are uncomfortable with waiver of and exception from informed consent for research studies. There is concern and some evidence that the federal guidelines have impeded the advancement of resuscitation science. Several strategies have been suggested to improve the situation. These include 1) better education of resuscitation researchers regarding the federal guidelines, 2) a toolbox for resuscitation researchers clarifying the guidelines, 3) advocacy for the advancement of resuscitation science as a public good, and 4) a national research advisory board that provides unbiased reviews of clinical studies and guidelines for local institutional review boards regarding risks, benefits, and communication strategies for waiver of and exception from consent proposals.     

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.     

Past,Present, and Future of Informed Consent in Pain and Genomics Research: Challenges Facing Global Medical Community

In recent decades, there has been a revision of the role of institutional review boards with the intention of protecting human subjects from harm and exploitation in research. Informed consent aims to protect the subject by explaining all of the benefits and risks associated with a specific research project. To date, there has not been a review published analyzing issues of informed consent in research in the field of genetic/Omics in subjects with chronic pain, and the current review aims to fill that gap in the ethical aspects of such investigation. Despite the extensive discussion on ethical challenges unique to the field of genetic/Omics, this is the first attempt at addressing ethical challenges regarding Informed Consent Forms for pain research as the primary focus. We see this contribution as an important one, for while ethical issues are too often ignored in pain research in general, the numerous arising ethical issues that are unique to pain genetic/Omics suggest that researchers in the field need to pay even greater attention to the rights of subjects/patients. This article presents the work of the Ethic Committee of the Pain‐Omics Group ( www.painomics.eu ), a consortium of 11 centers that is running the Pain‐Omics project funded by the European Community in the 7th Framework Program theme (HEALTH.2013.2.2.1‐5—Understanding and controlling pain). The Ethic Committee is composed of 1 member of each group of the consortium as well as key opinion leaders in the field of ethics and pain more generally.