Literature DB >> 15778230

A feasibility study of signed consent for the collection of patient identifiable information for a national paediatric clinical audit database.

Patricia A McKinney1, Samantha Jones, Roger Parslow, Nicola Davey, Mark Darowski, Bill Chaudhry, Charles Stack, Gareth Parry, Elizabeth S Draper.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of obtaining signed consent for submission of patient identifiable data to a national clinical audit database and to identify factors influencing the consent process and its success.
DESIGN: Feasibility study.
SETTING: Seven paediatric intensive care units in England. PARTICIPANTS: Parents/guardians of patients, or patients aged 12-16 years old, approached consecutively over three months for signed consent for submission of patient identifiable data to the national clinical audit database the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANet). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The numbers and proportions of admissions for which signed consent was given, refused, or not obtained (form not returned or form partially completed but not signed), by age, sex, level of deprivation, ethnicity (South Asian or not), paediatric index of mortality score, length of hospital stay (days in paediatric intensive care).
RESULTS: One unit did not start and one did not fully implement the protocol, so analysis excluded these two units. Consent was obtained for 182 of 422 admissions (43%) (range by unit 9% to 84%). Most (101/182; 55%) consents were taken by staff nurses. One refusal (0.2%) was received. Consent rates were significantly better for children who were more severely ill on admission and for hospital stays of six days or more, and significantly poorer for children aged 10-14 years. Long hospital stays and children aged 10-14 years remained significant in a stepwise regression model of the factors that were significant in the univariate model.
CONCLUSION: Systematically obtaining individual signed consent for sharing patient identifiable information with an externally located clinical audit database is difficult. Obtaining such consent is unlikely to be successful unless additional resources are specifically allocated to training, staff time, and administrative support.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15778230      PMCID: PMC556157          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38404.650208.AE

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  3 in total

1.  Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance.

Authors:  Chris Verity; Angus Nicoll
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-05-18

2.  Patients' consent preferences for research uses of information in electronic medical records: interview and survey data.

Authors:  Donald J Willison; Karim Keshavjee; Kalpana Nair; Charlie Goldsmith; Anne M Holbrook
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-02-15

Review 3.  Confidentiality and the public interest in medical research--will we ever get it right?

Authors:  Michel P Coleman; Barry G Evans; Geraldine Barrett
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.659

  3 in total
  9 in total

1.  Many patients may not understand consent forms.

Authors:  David D Pothier
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-05-14

2.  Extracting information from hospital records: what patients think about consent.

Authors:  Bruce Campbell; Helen Thomson; Jessica Slater; Colin Coward; Katrina Wyatt; Kieran Sweeney
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2007-12

3.  Evaluating predictors of geographic area population size cut-offs to manage re-identification risk.

Authors:  Khaled El Emam; Ann Brown; Philip AbdelMalik
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  The effect of privacy legislation on observational research.

Authors:  Andrea S Gershon; Jack V Tu
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-03-25       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  National survey of British public's views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry.

Authors:  Geraldine Barrett; Jackie A Cassell; Janet L Peacock; Michel P Coleman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-04-28

6.  End of life care for infants, children and young people (ENHANCE): Protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of current practice in the United Kingdom [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].

Authors:  Andrew Papworth; Julia Hackett; Bryony Beresford; Fliss Murtagh; Helen Weatherly; Sebastian Hinde; Andre Bedendo; Gabriella Walker; Jane Noyes; Sam Oddie; Chakrapani Vasudevan; Richard Feltbower; Bob Phillips; Richard Hain; Gayathri Subramanian; Andrew Haynes; Lorna K Fraser
Journal:  NIHR Open Res       Date:  2022-05-13

7.  Assessing the impact of the requirement for explicit consent in a hospital-based stroke study.

Authors:  C Jackson; L Crossland; M Dennis; J Wardlaw; C Sudlow
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2008-02-15

Review 8.  Research governance: regulating risk and reducing harm?

Authors:  Sara Shaw; Geraldine Barrett
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 18.000

9.  Evaluating common de-identification heuristics for personal health information.

Authors:  Khaled El Emam; Sam Jabbouri; Scott Sams; Youenn Drouet; Michael Power
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2006-11-21       Impact factor: 5.428

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.