PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial comparing two strategies [physician (MD) vs. non-physician (non-MD)] for approaching substitute decision makers (SDMs) for research and to evaluate SDMs' experiences in being approached for consent. METHODS: A pilot mixed methods study of first encounters with SDMs. RESULTS:Of 137 SDMs (162 eligibility events), 67 and 70 were randomized to MD and non-MD introductions, respectively. Eighty SDMs (98 events) provided consent and 21 SDMs (24 events) declined consent for studies, including 2 SDMs who provided and declined consent. We identified few missed introductions [4/52 (7.7 %)] and protocol violations [6/117 (5.1 %)], high comfort, satisfaction and acceptance scores and similar consent rates in both arms. SDMs provided consent significantly more often when a patient update was provided in the MD arm. Most SDMs (85.7 %) felt that physician involvement was inconsequential and preferred physician time to be dedicated to patient care; however, SDM experiences were closely related to their recall of being approached and recall was poor. SDMs highlighted 7 themes of importance to them in research surrogate decision-making. CONCLUSION: SDMs prioritized the personal attributes of the person approaching them over professional designation and preferred physician time to be dedicated to patient care. A mixed methods design evaluated intervention fidelity and provided the rationale for not proceeding to a larger trial, despite achieving all feasibility metrics in the pilot trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01232621.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial comparing two strategies [physician (MD) vs. non-physician (non-MD)] for approaching substitute decision makers (SDMs) for research and to evaluate SDMs' experiences in being approached for consent. METHODS: A pilot mixed methods study of first encounters with SDMs. RESULTS: Of 137 SDMs (162 eligibility events), 67 and 70 were randomized to MD and non-MD introductions, respectively. Eighty SDMs (98 events) provided consent and 21 SDMs (24 events) declined consent for studies, including 2 SDMs who provided and declined consent. We identified few missed introductions [4/52 (7.7 %)] and protocol violations [6/117 (5.1 %)], high comfort, satisfaction and acceptance scores and similar consent rates in both arms. SDMs provided consent significantly more often when a patient update was provided in the MD arm. Most SDMs (85.7 %) felt that physician involvement was inconsequential and preferred physician time to be dedicated to patient care; however, SDM experiences were closely related to their recall of being approached and recall was poor. SDMs highlighted 7 themes of importance to them in research surrogate decision-making. CONCLUSION: SDMs prioritized the personal attributes of the person approaching them over professional designation and preferred physician time to be dedicated to patient care. A mixed methods design evaluated intervention fidelity and provided the rationale for not proceeding to a larger trial, despite achieving all feasibility metrics in the pilot trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01232621.
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: Andrea M Yevchak; Donna M Fick; Jane McDowell; Todd Monroe; Kanah May; Lori Grove; Ann M Kolanowski; Jennifer L Waller; Sharon K Inouye Journal: Clin Nurs Res Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 2.075
Authors: J P Elder; L M Artz; P Beaudin; R A Carleton; T M Lasater; G Peterson; A Rodrigues; E Guadagnoli; W F Velicer Journal: Prev Med Date: 1985-01 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Kali A Barrett; Niall D Ferguson; Valerie Athaide; Deborah J Cook; Jan O Friedrich; Ellen McDonald; Ruxandra Pinto; Orla M Smith; James Stevenson; Damon C Scales Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Mary E Larkin; Catherine C Beauharnais; Kendra Magyar; Laurel Macey; Kerry B Grennan; Emily E Boykin; Steven J Russell Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Ellen Iverson; Aaron Celious; Carie R Kennedy; Erica Shehane; Alexander Eastman; Victoria Warren; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Brian Clarridge; Bradley D Freeman Journal: Chest Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Daren K Heyland; Graeme M Rocker; Peter M Dodek; Demetrios J Kutsogiannis; Elsie Konopad; Deborah J Cook; Sharon Peters; Joan E Tranmer; Christopher J O'Callaghan Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ron Wald; Jan O Friedrich; Sean M Bagshaw; Karen E A Burns; Amit X Garg; Michelle A Hladunewich; Andrew A House; Stephen Lapinsky; David Klein; Neesh I Pannu; Karen Pope; Robert M Richardson; Kevin Thorpe; Neill K J Adhikari Journal: Crit Care Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Anne M Lachiewicz; Felicia N Williams; Shannon S Carson; Jessica M Trexler; Carrie A Nielsen; David van Duin; David J Weber; Shannon D Williams; Samuel W Jones; Bruce A Cairns Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Katie O'Hearn; Jess Gibson; Karla Krewulak; Rebecca Porteous; Victoria Saigle; Margaret Sampson; Anne Tsampalieros; Nick Barrowman; Saoirse Cameron Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 6.713
Authors: Alison E Turnbull; Mohamed D Hashem; Anahita Rabiee; An To; Caroline M Chessare; Dale M Needham Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 3.240