Patients' preferences for enrolment into critical-care trials
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Intensive Care Medicine
(Impact Factor: 7.21).
07/2009; 35(10):1703-12. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-009-1552-y
Most critically ill patients are incapable of providing informed consent for research.
We sought to determine patients' preferences for different consent frameworks for enrolling incapable patients into critical-care trials.
Prospective observational and structured interview study.
Five university-affiliated hospitals in Ontario.
Two-hundred and forty consecutive capable and consenting survivors of critical illness.
Participants considered four frameworks for enrolling incapable patients into clinical trials using a baseline scenario and three permutations for: risk (very low vs. high), treatment type (new vs. currently available), and availability of substitute decision-maker (yes vs. no).
For each scenario, patients chose their preferred framework and rated the acceptability of each framework using a seven-point Likert scale. Most (180/240; 76%) patients selected "consent by substitute prior to enrolment" as their preferred framework; this also received the highest baseline acceptability ratings ("acceptable" or "highly acceptable" 207/240; 87%). Modifying risk or treatment type did not substantially change these ratings. A minority of patients rated delayed consent as unacceptable or highly unacceptable in both the baseline scenario (48/240, 20% delayed to substitute; 57/240, 24% delayed to patient) and when a substitute was unavailable (34/240; 15%).
Most survivors of critical illness found the usual practice of obtaining informed consent from a substitute decision-maker prior to enrolment in a clinical trial to be acceptable. Nearly half of patients considered foregoing informed consent to be unacceptable, whereas a minority considered enrolment followed by delayed consent to be unacceptable even when a substitute was unavailable. These approaches should, therefore, only be considered when deviating from the usual practice of obtaining consent from a substitute decision-maker is truly justified, such as where treatments being tested need to be delivered as soon as possible in order to be effective.
Available from: Yoanna Skrobik
- "Patients and families involved in emergency research report a desire for more information after enrolment (Kamarainen et al., 2012). The need to engage in ongoing assessment of patient capacity for involvement in decision-making is crucial (Bigatello et al., 2003; Chenaud et al., 2007); however, only a minority of patients pass formal capacity screens both during their ICU stay and before hospital discharge which can preclude the ability of the research coordinator to obtain first-party consent (Fan et al., 2008; Scales et al., 2009). Furthermore, there is no clear guidance in the literature, or in existing ethical frameworks , as to how long the mandate for re-consent should apply. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Critically ill patients lack capacity for decisions about research participation. Consent to enrol these patients in studies is typically obtained from substitute decision-makers.
To present strategies that may optimise the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers for participation of critically ill patients in trials. We use examples from a randomised trial of heparin thromboprophylaxis in the intensive care unit (PROTECT, clinicaltrials.gov NCT00182143).
3764 patients were randomised, with an informed consent rate of 82%; 90% of consents were obtained from substitute decision-makers. North American PROTECT research coordinators attended three meetings to discuss enrolment: (1) Trial start-up (January 2006); (2) Near trial closure (January 2010); and (3) Post-publication (April 2011). Data were derived from slide presentations, field notes from break-out groups and plenary discussions, then analysed inductively.
We derived three phases for the informed consent process: (1) Preparation for the Consent Encounter; (2) The Consent Encounter; and (3) Follow-up to the Consent Encounter. Specific strategies emerged for each phase: Phase 1 (four strategies); Phase 2 (six strategies); and Phase 3 (three strategies).
We identified 13 strategies that may improve the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers and be generalisable to other settings and studies.
Intensive & critical care nursing: the official journal of the British Association of Critical Care Nurses 07/2013; 29(6). DOI:10.1016/j.iccn.2013.04.006
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A linear dynamic system is considered. Orthogonal series procedures are developed to recover the state and its derivative. The uniform mean square error convergence is investigated. An application to identification and open-loop control is discussed.
American Control Conference, 1988; 07/1988
Available from: Michael Ibsen
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In many countries relatives are asked to consent on behalf of ICU patients prior to inclusion in clinical trials. However, the attitudes to drug trials among relatives of unconscious ICU patients are largely unknown.
We performed a prospective questionnaire survey at two university hospital ICUs of the next-of-kin to 50 unconscious adult patients. They were asked to complete a questionnaire within 48 hours of the patients' acute ICU admission.
Forty-two relatives returned the questionnaire of which 41 were completed by direct family members and in one case by a friend to the patient.The majority of relatives (36/42) were positive/positive with some scepticism towards performing drug trials in unconscious ICU patients and 30/42 would most likely accept trial-participation by their relative. The majority (30/42) agreed that they should decide if their relative was to participate in a drug trial and 24 of these found that the treating clinician/ICU consultant should also consent. The majority (27/42) found that deferred consent would be acceptable if there was a limited time frame for initiation of treatment, however 8 respondents found this unacceptable when the intervention was a new drug.The majority of relatives stipulated that adherence to legislation, treatment benefit for the study patient and for future patients, no patient-risk or -discomfort and development of new drugs were important factors if their relative was to participate in an ICU drug trial. When questioned about doctors' motives for performing drug trials the wish for drug development and better patient care were highly rated among relatives.
In general, relatives to unconscious ICU patients expressed positive attitudes to drug trials in the ICU and the inclusion of their relative in drug trials. Consent by next-of-kin and deferred consent was acceptable to the majority of relatives.
BMC Anesthesiology 05/2010; 10(1):6. DOI:10.1186/1471-2253-10-6 · 1.38 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.