Melissa A Terry1, Daniel E Freedberg, Marilyn C Morris. 1. 1Department of Medicine, Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 2Department of Pediatrics, Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Seeking consent for minimal risk research in the ICU poses challenges, especially when the research is time-sensitive. Our aim was to determine the extent to which ICU patients or surrogates support a deferred consent process for a minimal risk study without the potential for direct benefit. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five ICUs within a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Newly admitted ICU patients 18 years old or older. INTERVENTIONS: We administered an eight-item verbal survey to patients or surrogates approached for consent to participate in a minimal risk, ICU-based study. The parent study involved noninvasive collection of biosamples and clinical data at the time of ICU admission and again 3 days later. If patients had capacity at the time of ICU admission, or if a surrogate was readily available, consent was sought prior to initial sample collection; otherwise, a waiver of consent was granted, and deferred consent was sought 3 days later. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven individuals were approached for consent to participate in the parent study; none objected to the consent process. One hundred thirty-five of 157 (86%) competed the survey, including 94 who consented to the parent study and 41 who declined. Forty-four of 60 individuals (73%) approached for deferred consent responded positively to the question "Did we make the right choice in waiting until now to ask your consent?" three of 60 (5%) responded negatively, and 13 of 60 (22%) made a neutral or unrelated response. The most common reason given for endorsing the deferred consent process was the stress of the early ICU experience 25 of 44 (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients and surrogates accept a deferred consent process for minimal risk research in the ICU. For appropriate ICU-based research, investigators and Institutional Review Boards should consider a deferred consent process if the subject lacks capacity and an appropriate surrogate is not readily available.
OBJECTIVES: Seeking consent for minimal risk research in the ICU poses challenges, especially when the research is time-sensitive. Our aim was to determine the extent to which ICU patients or surrogates support a deferred consent process for a minimal risk study without the potential for direct benefit. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five ICUs within a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Newly admitted ICU patients 18 years old or older. INTERVENTIONS: We administered an eight-item verbal survey to patients or surrogates approached for consent to participate in a minimal risk, ICU-based study. The parent study involved noninvasive collection of biosamples and clinical data at the time of ICU admission and again 3 days later. If patients had capacity at the time of ICU admission, or if a surrogate was readily available, consent was sought prior to initial sample collection; otherwise, a waiver of consent was granted, and deferred consent was sought 3 days later. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven individuals were approached for consent to participate in the parent study; none objected to the consent process. One hundred thirty-five of 157 (86%) competed the survey, including 94 who consented to the parent study and 41 who declined. Forty-four of 60 individuals (73%) approached for deferred consent responded positively to the question "Did we make the right choice in waiting until now to ask your consent?" three of 60 (5%) responded negatively, and 13 of 60 (22%) made a neutral or unrelated response. The most common reason given for endorsing the deferred consent process was the stress of the early ICU experience 25 of 44 (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients and surrogates accept a deferred consent process for minimal risk research in the ICU. For appropriate ICU-based research, investigators and Institutional Review Boards should consider a deferred consent process if the subject lacks capacity and an appropriate surrogate is not readily available.
Authors: Karen E A Burns; Mark Duffett; Michelle E Kho; Maureen O Meade; Neill K J Adhikari; Tasnim Sinuff; Deborah J Cook Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 8.262
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: F Pochard; E Azoulay; S Chevret; F Lemaire; P Hubert; P Canoui; M Grassin; R Zittoun; J R le Gall; J F Dhainaut; B Schlemmer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Erin E Fox; Eileen M Bulger; Aisha S Dickerson; Deborah J del Junco; Patricia Klotz; Jeanette Podbielski; Nena Matijevic; Karen J Brasel; John B Holcomb; Martin A Schreiber; Bryan A Cotton; Herb A Phelan; Mitchell J Cohen; John G Myers; Louis H Alarcon; Peter Muskat; Charles E Wade; Mohammad H Rahbar Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Neal W Dickert; Victoria A Mah; Jill M Baren; Michelle H Biros; Prasanthi Govindarajan; Arthur Pancioli; Robert Silbergleit; David W Wright; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Carol Bennett; Sara Khangura; Jamie C Brehaut; Ian D Graham; David Moher; Beth K Potter; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Yichun Fu; Dagmara I Moscoso; Joyce Porter; Suneeta Krishnareddy; Julian A Abrams; David Seres; David H Chong; Daniel E Freedberg Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Selena Z Kuo; Katja Dettmer; Medini K Annavajhala; David H Chong; Anne-Catrin Uhlemann; Julian A Abrams; Peter J Oefner; Daniel E Freedberg Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 4.298
Authors: Christian Munck; Ravi U Sheth; Edward Cuaresma; Jessica Weidler; Stephania L Stump; Philip Zachariah; David H Chong; Anne-Catrin Uhlemann; Julian A Abrams; Harris H Wang; Daniel E Freedberg Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 9.097