OBJECTIVE: Critically ill patients frequently display impaired decision-making capacity due to their underlying illness and the use of sedating medications. Healthcare providers often rely on surrogates to make decisions for medical care and participation in clinical research. However, the accuracy of surrogate decisions for a variety of critical care research studies is poorly understood. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Medical intensive care unit patients and their designated surrogates. INTERVENTION: Patients were asked whether they would consent to participate in hypothetical research studies of increasing complexity, and surrogates independently indicated whether they would consent to enroll the patient in the same scenarios. RESULTS: Overall, 69 medical intensive care unit patients were enrolled into the study. The majority of surrogates were either the spouse (58%) or parent (22%) of the patient. The percentage of patients that would agree to participate in a research study and the percentage of surrogates that would agree to have the patient enrolled into a research study both declined as the risk of the study increased (p < .001 for both analyses). In addition, the overall discrepancy, the false-negative rates, and the false-positive rates between patient and surrogates were greater as the risk of the study increased (p < .001, p < .001, and p = .049, respectively). κ values for all seven scenarios demonstrated less-than-moderate agreement (range 0.03-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant discrepancies in the willingness to participate in various types of clinical research proposals between critically ill patients and their surrogate decision makers. The results of this study raise concerns about the use of surrogate consent for inclusion of critically ill patients into research protocols.
OBJECTIVE:Critically illpatients frequently display impaired decision-making capacity due to their underlying illness and the use of sedating medications. Healthcare providers often rely on surrogates to make decisions for medical care and participation in clinical research. However, the accuracy of surrogate decisions for a variety of critical care research studies is poorly understood. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Medical intensive care unit patients and their designated surrogates. INTERVENTION: Patients were asked whether they would consent to participate in hypothetical research studies of increasing complexity, and surrogates independently indicated whether they would consent to enroll the patient in the same scenarios. RESULTS: Overall, 69 medical intensive care unit patients were enrolled into the study. The majority of surrogates were either the spouse (58%) or parent (22%) of the patient. The percentage of patients that would agree to participate in a research study and the percentage of surrogates that would agree to have the patient enrolled into a research study both declined as the risk of the study increased (p < .001 for both analyses). In addition, the overall discrepancy, the false-negative rates, and the false-positive rates between patient and surrogates were greater as the risk of the study increased (p < .001, p < .001, and p = .049, respectively). κ values for all seven scenarios demonstrated less-than-moderate agreement (range 0.03-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant discrepancies in the willingness to participate in various types of clinical research proposals between critically illpatients and their surrogate decision makers. The results of this study raise concerns about the use of surrogate consent for inclusion of critically illpatients into research protocols.
Authors: Sangeeta Mehta; Friederike Quittnat Pelletier; Maedean Brown; Cheryl Ethier; David Wells; Lisa Burry; Rod MacDonald Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-11-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: James C Jackson; Robert P Hart; Sharon M Gordon; Ayumi Shintani; Brenda Truman; Lisa May; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Margaret S Herridge; Angela M Cheung; Catherine M Tansey; Andrea Matte-Martyn; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Fatma Al-Saidi; Andrew B Cooper; Cameron B Guest; C David Mazer; Sangeeta Mehta; Thomas E Stewart; Aiala Barr; Deborah Cook; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Margaret S Herridge; Catherine M Tansey; Andrea Matté; George Tomlinson; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Andrew Cooper; Cameron B Guest; C David Mazer; Sangeeta Mehta; Thomas E Stewart; Paul Kudlow; Deborah Cook; Arthur S Slutsky; Angela M Cheung Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexandra Smart; B Taylor Thompson; Dale M Needham; Ramona O Hopkins; Andre Williams; Ellen L Burnham; Marc Moss Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Bradley D Freeman; Kevin Butler; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Brian R Clarridge; Carie R Kennedy; Jessica LeBlanc; Sara Chandros Hull Journal: Chest Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Bradley D Freeman; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Carie R Kennedy; Jessica LeBlanc; Alexander Eastman; Jennifer Barillas; Catherine M Wittgen; Kathryn Indsey; Rumel S Mahmood; Brian R Clarridge Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2015-05-01
Authors: Dustin C Krutsinger; Kelly L O'Leary; Susan S Ellenberg; Cody E Cotner; Scott D Halpern; Katherine R Courtright Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2020-09
Authors: K E A Burns; L Rizvi; O M Smith; Y Lee; J Lee; M Wang; M Brown; M Parker; A Premji; D Leung; M Hammond Mobilio; L Gotlib-Conn; R Nisenbaum; M Santos; Y Li; S Mehta Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 17.440