Literature DB >> 16950857

Experiences from the front-line routine consenting of surplus surgically removed tissue: without investment by the National Health Service fully informed consent for all is not available.

Janet Wheeler1, Monica Agarwal, John Sugden, Meriel Bladon, Philip Quirke.   

Abstract

The study investigated the routine introduction of a new surgical consent form containing a tissue consent section to investigate patient attitudes to the use of surplus tissue for research (after the Alder Hey inquiry) and also the differing approaches by consent takers. All surgical consent forms received in histopathology for the same 2-month period in 2 consecutive years were analysed, recording available information about the specimen, the tissue consent section and, for the second year, the consent taker. The findings showed that <5% of patients whose views were recorded disagreed with the use of their tissue for research. They also showed that the number of completed forms sent to histopathology had increased but the pattern of completion had changed very little. A wide variation between departments and also between clinicians was apparent in the levels of completion of the tissue consent section, suggesting wide variability in the quality of the consenting process. When asked, patients rarely object (<5%) but if the highest standards of consent for surgical tissue are to be achieved and the wishes of patients to donate tissue are to be effectively recorded then new resources or approaches will be needed for this process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16950857      PMCID: PMC2001129          DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2006.038216

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  3 in total

1.  Why surgical patients do not donate tissue for commercial research: review of records.

Authors:  Alison L Jack; Christopher Womack
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-08-02

2.  One-time general consent for research on biological samples: good idea, but will it happen?

Authors:  Peter N Furness
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-18

3.  Ownership and uses of human tissue: does the Nuffield bioethics report accord with opinion of surgical inpatients?

Authors:  R D Start; W Brown; R J Bryant; M W Reed; S S Cross; G Kent; J C Underwood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-11-30
  3 in total
  4 in total

1.  A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples.

Authors:  E Vermeulen; M K Schmidt; N K Aaronson; M Kuenen; M-J Baas-Vrancken Peeters; H van der Poel; S Horenblas; H Boot; V J Verwaal; A Cats; F E van Leeuwen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 7.640

2.  Public views on the donation and use of human biological samples in biomedical research: a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Margaret Clotworthy; Shona Hilton; Caroline Magee; Mark J Robertson; Lesley J Stubbins; Julie Corfield
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Consent for the use of human biological samples for biomedical research: a mixed methods study exploring the UK public's preferences.

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Margaret Clotworthy; Shona Hilton; Caroline Magee; Mark J Robertson; Lesley J Stubbins; Julie Corfield
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  A Randomised Controlled Trial of Consent Procedures for the Use of Residual Tissues for Medical Research: Preferences of and Implications for Patients, Research and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  S Rebers; E Vermeulen; A P Brandenburg; T J Stoof; B Zupan-Kajcovski; W J W Bos; M J Jonker; C J Bax; W J van Driel; V J Verwaal; M W van den Brekel; J C Grutters; R A Tupker; L Plusjé; R de Bree; J H Schagen van Leeuwen; E G J Vermeulen; R A de Leeuw; R M Brohet; N K Aaronson; F E Van Leeuwen; M K Schmidt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.