The problem of informed consent in emergency medicine research

The CRASH Trial (Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head injury), which started in April 1999 hopes to answer the question of whether or not there is any benefit to giving high dose corticosteroids after significant head injuries. To do this patients are randomised to receive either the standard care for head injuries, as defined by the receiving hospital, or standard care plus a 48 hour infusion of corticosteroids. This is to be started within eight hours of injury, preferably as soon as possible. As all eligible patients will have a reduced level of consciousness informed consent has been deemed unnecessary. In this review the issue of consent in human experimentation is presented with a special emphasis on the problems faced in emergency medicine research, and the way these have been tackled.     

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.     

Patient advocacy: witnessing informed consent for research in acute care.

Two views exist about witnessing informed consent for research in acute care settings: nurses witness a signature, and nurses witness the informed consent itself. Nurses are obligated to fulfill legal responsibilities and ethical expectations because of their role in the clinical arena, and to serve as advocates for patients to be informed, willing research participants. This role promotes change in institutional policies to keep up with the changing face of research.     

Does waiver of written informed consent from the institutional review board affect response rate in a low-risk research study?

BACKGROUND: Requiring written informed consent for a minimal-risk survey may result in limited participation rates. METHODS: Data from a cross-sectional survey of 177 older patients (87 blacks and 90 whites) with hypertension enrolled in the managed care Medicare risk product were used to assess participation rates pre- and postwaiver of written informed consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) authorization. Prior to the waivers being granted, patients were contacted two times via mail with an introductory letter and an informed consent document. Those who completed and returned the informed consent document were administered the questionnaire. After 6 weeks, a waiver of written informed consent and HIPAA authorization was obtained from the Institutional Review Board. Nonparticipants were reapproached and asked to complete the questionnaire. Participation rates were recorded before and after receiving the waivers. RESULTS: Participation rates increased from 21.5% in the prewaiver period to 57.4% in the postwaiver period (p < .001). Prewaiver participation differed by demographic subgroup and was higher among whites (26.7%) versus blacks (16.1%; p = .087), men (31.6%) versus women (16.7%; p = .024), and participants > or = 75 years old (28.4%) versus < 75 years old (14.6%; p = .025). In contrast, the postwaiver participation rate did not differ significantly across race, gender, or age subgroupings. Significant increases in participation rates from the pre- to the postwaiver time period were noted within each demographic subgroup (all p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a substantial increase in participation rates postwaiver of written informed consent and HIPAA authorization in a minimal-risk survey. The need for written documentation for minimal-risk surveys may negatively impact recruitment of blacks, women, and patients < 75 years old.     

Waiver of informed consent: A survey of emergency medicine patients

Changes to Federal regulations pertaining to waiver of informed consent for acute care research were debated by the research and regulatory communities for more than 2 years before being finalized in October of 1996. Input from the general public was limited. This survey investigated the opinions of emergency medicine patients concerning wavier of informed consent for acute care research. A convenience sample of 212 patients were approached at a tertiary care academic urban emergency department. Seventy-three percent approved of waiver of informed consent if the absolute risks were minimal (50% if the absolute risks were greater than minimal but the incremental risk were minimal). Educational status and certain aspects of the patient's current health status (but not age, race, or gender) significantly affected the results. While most emergency medicine patients would want to be enrolled in a study if they had a serious illness and were unable to give informed consent, a significant percentage of patients would not want to be enrolled regardless of the degree of risk or availability of a family member to speak on their behalf. Waiver of informed consent for emergency research is an ethical dilemma pitting individual rights against societal needs and physician parentalism. A better understanding of what patients consider appropriate may help in resolving this dilemma.     

The concept of informed consent in qualitative research

Informed consent is an essential part of all research endeavors that involve human participants. The human rights of research participants must be protected. It is incumbent upon the qualitative researcher to provide a dynamic informed consent when study outcomes change. The violation of privacy is more apt to occur with in-depth interviews, which has implications for researchers to protect human rights throughout data collection, analysis, and dissemination.