Implementation of a Bundled Consent Process in the ICU: A Single-Center Experience.

OBJECTIVES: A bundled consent process, where patients or surrogates provide consent for all commonly performed procedures on a single form at the time of ICU admission, has been advocated as a method for improving both rates of documented consent and patient/family satisfaction, but there has been little published literature about the use of bundled consent. We sought to determine how residents in an academic medical center with a required bundled consent process actually obtain consent and how they perceive the overall value, efficacy, and effects on families of this approach. DESIGN: Single-center survey study. SETTING: Medical ICUs in an urban academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Internal medicine residents. INTERVENTIONS: We administered an online survey about bundled consent use to all residents. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One-hundred two of 164 internal medicine residents (62%) completed the survey. A majority of residents (55%) reported grouping procedures and discussing general risks and benefits; 11% reported conducting a complete informed consent discussion for each procedure. Respondents were divided in their perception of the value of bundled consent, but most (78%) felt it scared or stressed families. A minority (26%) felt confident that they obtained valid informed consent for critical care procedures with the use of bundled consent. An additional theme that emerged from qualitative data was concern regarding the validity of anticipatory consent. CONCLUSIONS: Resident physicians experienced with the use of bundled consent in the ICU held variable perceptions of its value but raised concerns about the effect on families and the validity of consent obtained with this strategy. Further studies are necessary to further explore what constitutes best practice for informed consent in critical care.

Consent for Biobanking: The Legal Frameworks of Countries in the BioSHaRE-EU Project.

Currently, there is no single, Europe-wide regulation of biomedical research using human samples and data. Instead, the law that applies spans a number of areas of law, such as data protection, clinical trials, and tissue regulation. In the absence of harmonized regulation, there is considerable scope for national legal variation. This article analyzes the legislative frameworks that apply to biobanking activities to identify differences in legal requirements between the BioSHaRE-EU project countries: Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. This article highlights the primary role of consent and accompanying governance mechanisms, such as research ethics committee oversight, which enable consent exemptions in the context of research. Our analysis identifies a complicated legal landscape, whereby broadly similar provisions are contained in varied sources of law in each jurisdiction. The challenge for researchers is locating the applicable legal provisions within each national legal framework.

Description of a Mobile-based Electronic Informed Consent System Development.

Seoul National University Hospital constructed and implemented a computer-based informed consent system in December 2011. As of 2013, 30% of the informed consents were still filled out manually on paper. Patients and medical staff continuously suggested the implementation of a system for electronic informed consent using portable devices. Therefore, a mobile-based system for electronic informed consent was developed in 2013 to prevent the issues that arise with computer-based systems and paper informed consent. The rate of filling out electronic informed consent increased from 69% to 95% following the implementation of the mobile-based electronic informed consent. This construction of a mobile-based electronic informed consent system would be a good reference point for the development of a mobile-based Electronic Medical Record and for various mobile system environments in medical institutions.

A single consent for serial anesthetics in burn surgery.

Obtaining anesthesia informed consent for a series of repetitive debridements in burn-injured patients requires a significant time investment for anesthesiologists and patient families. A single consent form was introduced that covered multiple related anesthetics in burn patients. The number of consents per patient before and after implementation was analyzed using Welch ANOVA; Tukey-Kramer post hoc test, with 99% confidence intervals for mean differences was used to examine pairwise comparisons. The mean number of consents per patient was 4.5 ± 2.8 and 1.6 ± 0.51 (P < 0.001) before (2010) and after implementation (2013), respectively. The Multiple Related Anesthetics Consent Form in this population resulted in less time spent by anesthesia providers in obtaining consent for patients undergoing multiple related procedures while providing patient- and family-centric care.

Development of a Web-based surgical booking and informed consent system to reduce the potential for error and improve communication.

BACKGROUND: The decision to perform an elective procedure often originates during an office visit between surgeon and patient. Several administrative tasks follow, including scheduling or "booking" of the case and obtaining informed consent. These processes require communicating accurate information regarding diagnosis, procedure, and other patient-specific details necessary for the safe and effective performance of an operation. Nonstandardized and paper-based consents pose difficulty with legibility, portability, and consistency, thereby representing a source of potential error and inefficiency. There are numerous barriers to efficiently booking elective surgical procedures and obtaining a legible, complete, and easily retrievable informed consent. An integrated Web-based booking and consent system was developed at a multisite university-affiliated community hospital system to improve the speed and quality of work flow, as well as communication with both the patients and staff. METHODS: A booking and consent system was developed and made available over the intranet. This customized system was created by leveraging existing information systems. RESULTS: The electronic consent system uses surgeon-specific templates and allows for a consistent approach to each procedure. A printed consent form can be generated at any time from any of the health care system's three campuses and is commonly stored in the electronic medical record. Integration into our perioperative system allows for coordination with the operating room staff, administrative personal, financial coordinators, and central supply. Total systems expenditure for development was estimated at $40,000 (US). CONCLUSIONS: Organizations considering standardizing their own consent and operating room booking processes can review this experience in making their own "make or buy" decision for their own settings.

Preserving participant anonymity during remote preenrollment consent form checking.

BACKGROUND: In biomedical research, the consent form must comply with regulatory requirements. Checking for compliance typically has been performed on-site and most frequently after a participant's final enrollment. We use a procedure for remote preenrollment checking of consent forms that protects participant identities. This procedure requires a copy of the consent form that partially masks the fields for participant's name and signature; this copy is faxed to the clinical trials unit for checking. PURPOSE: To describe our efforts to identify an appropriate printed masking pattern. We tried several patterns that permit ascertainment of the presence of signatures and names and evaluated each one with respect to degree of masking participant identities. METHODS: We assessed the efficiency of a satisfactory pattern through an experiment. We created forms with variants of the masking pattern on the copy to be faxed. We completed the forms with fictitious identities before copies were faxed and checked by clinical research associates. We measured the rate of empty and filled fields detected and the rate of letters and names correctly read. The target was defined as 100% for the rate of empty and filled fields detected and 0% for the rate of letters and names correctly read. RESULTS: The best masking pattern allowed the detection of 100% empty and filled fields and the reading of 0% names and 19% letters. Consequently, the consent form with the selected masking pattern has been used routinely in our clinical trials unit. LIMITATIONS: We tested only five fictitious identities, five individuals who completed forms, and three who checked forms. Also, we initially considered only four patterns and variations in them. CONCLUSIONS: We defined a masking pattern that satisfactorily fulfilled our needs for confidentiality. This and other procedures for remote preenrollment checking of consent form can be a key component of a risk-based monitoring strategy.

Documenting informed consent in elective hip replacement surgery: a simple change in practice.

Adequate documentation of informed consent is an important aspect of many doctors' work and failings in this area may result in patient dissatisfaction or litigation. In 2009 the documentation of risks and complications on the consent forms of patients undergoing primary hip replacement was audited at a specialist centre. Following this audit procedure-specific complication stickers were introduced in an attempt to improve the documentation of the consent process. This article discusses the results of a re-audit and aims to determine if this change in practice had resulted in any significant improvement in documentation. The consent forms of 100 consecutive patients undergoing primary total hip replacement were re-audited using a standardized data collection sheet in order to close the audit loop. The re-audit found that 86 consent forms used the procedure-specific complication sticker to list the potential complications associated with a total hip replacement. Statistically significant improvements in the documentation of fracture, neurovascular damage, leg length discrepancy, failure, premature loosening, death, medical complications, ongoing pain, stiffness, wound healing problems and other were all seen in the 2012 re-audit in comparison to the 2009 audit (P<0.0001). The cheap and simple introduction of procedure-specific complication stickers in order to help surgeons document the process of informed consent has resulted in significant improvements in practice. In the context of patient-focused care and satisfaction in the NHS, it is vital that simple measures such as the introduction of procedure-specific complication stickers are embraced.

Remote preenrollment checking of consent forms to reduce nonconformity.

BACKGROUND: In biomedical research, the signed consent form must be checked for compliance with regulatory requirements. Checking usually is performed on site, most frequently after a participant's final enrollment. PURPOSE: We piloted a procedure for remote preenrollment consent forms checking. We applied it in five trials and assessed its efficiency to reduce form nonconformity before participant enrollment. METHODS: Our clinical trials unit (CTU) routinely uses a consent form with an additional copy that contains a pattern that partially masks the participant's name and signature. After completion and signatures by the participant and investigator, this masked copy is faxed to the CTU for checking. In case of detected nonconformity, the CTU suspends the participant's enrollment until the form is brought into compliance. We checked nonconformities of consent forms both remotely before enrollment and on site in five trials conducted in our CTU. We tabulated the number and nature of nonconformities by location of detection: at the CTU or on site. We used these data for a pseudo before-and-after analysis and estimated the efficiency of this remote checking procedure in terms of reduction of nonconformities before enrollment as compared to the standard on-site checking procedure. We searched for nonconformity determinants among characteristics of trials, consent forms, investigator sites, and participants through multivariate logistic regression so as to identify opportunities for improvement in our procedure. RESULTS: Five trials, starting sequentially but running concurrently, with remote preenrollment and on-site checking of consent forms from 415 participants screened in 2006-2009 led to 518 consent forms checked; 94 nonconformities were detected in 75 forms, 75 (80%) remotely and 19 more (20%) on site. Nonconformities infrequently concerned dates of signatures (7%) and information about participants (12%). Most nonconformities dealt with investigator information (76%), primarily contact information (54%). The procedure reduced nonconformities by 81% (95% confidence interval (CI): 73%-89%) before enrollment. Nonconforming consent forms dropped from 25% to 0% over the period, indicating a rapid learning effect between trials. Fewer nonconformities were observed for participants screened later in a trial (odds ratio (95% CI): 0.5 (0.3-0.8); p = 0.004), indicating a learning effect within trials. Nonconformities were more common for participants enrolled after screening (2.4 (1.1-5.3); p = 0.03), indicating a stricter scrutiny by form checkers. LIMITATIONS: Although our study had a pseudo before-and-after design, no major bias was identified. Power and generalizability of our findings were sufficient to support implementation in future trials. CONCLUSIONS: This procedure substantially limited nonconformity of consent forms with regulatory requirements before enrollment, thus proving a key component of a risk-based monitoring strategy that has been recommended to optimize resources for clinical research.

Looking at research consent forms through a participant-centered lens: the PRISM readability toolkit.

Communicating in lay language is an underdeveloped skill among many researchers-a limitation that contributes to low readability among research consent forms and may hinder participant understanding of study procedures and risks. We present the Project to Review and Improve Study Materials (PRISM) and its centerpiece, the PRISM Readability Toolkit. The toolkit provides strategies for creating study materials that are readable and participant centered, focusing on consent forms but also addressing other participant materials. Based on plain language principles, this free resource includes a flexible menu of tools, such as an editing checklist, before and after examples, easy-to-read template language, and a list of alternative words. Among PRISM's ongoing goals is to test the toolkit with populations groups.

Orthognathic surgery: a new preoperative informed consent model.

The authors of this study propose a new informed consent form for orthognathic surgery. In a previous study from 2004, a careful review of the international literature and clinical practice suggested the feasibility of dividing the informed consent form into 2 parts, one describing diagnostic procedures and therapeutic/surgical times, and another describing possible problems. During these 4 years, we noticed that this model has 2 setbacks. We replaced point 2, "temporomandibular joint disorders," with "postoperative temporomandibular joint derangement," so that the surgeon is now supposed to inform the patient on the possibility of condylar dislocations, condylar sag, and clockwise/anticlockwise rotations of occlusal surface after surgery. We also changed point 5, "tooth and periodontal disease," in "tooth damage, avulsion, and periodontal disease" because we believe patients should be informed better on the risk of injuries to the dental elements such as fractures, luxations, or avulsions, especially to incisors. In the opinion of the authors, this new informed consent form allows the patient to know the risks related to the orthodontic/surgical therapy better, thus preserving the surgeons from the civil risk and penalties of omission.

Trust in early phase research: therapeutic optimism and protective pessimism.

Bioethicists have long been concerned that seriously ill patients entering early phase ('phase I') treatment trials are motivated by therapeutic benefit even though the likelihood of benefit is low. In spite of these concerns, consent forms for phase I studies involving seriously ill patients generally employ indeterminate benefit statements rather than unambiguous statements of unlikely benefit. This seeming mismatch between attitudes and actions suggests a need to better understand research ethics committee members' attitudes toward communication of potential benefits and risks of early phase studies to potential subjects. We surveyed the members of two U.S. research ethics committees using a phase I gene transfer study scenario, and compared the results to a previous survey of potential subjects' perceptions and attitudes toward benefit and risk for the same protocol. The results show that there is indeed a gap between the subjects' perceptions and the committee members' views on what is appropriate to be communicated to research subjects. This discrepancy is the product of both the commonly assumed optimism of the subjects and to a "protective pessimism" of the research ethics committee members. We discuss this discrepancy using "frameworks of trust" and demonstrate the need to incorporate these frameworks into the existing model of informed consent.

Impact of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act on participant recruitment and retention.

Recruiting and retaining an adequate sample is critical to the success of any research project involving humans. Recent reports indicate that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rule has adversely affected research. Few resources are available to help researchers navigate the challenges to recruitment and retention after HIPAA privacy rule implementation. This article addresses obstacles to recruitment in prospective clinical research studies related to the HIPAA privacy rule, as well as HIPAA-compliant strategies to enhance recruitment and retention. Recruitment challenges discussed include evolving interpretations of the HIPAA regulations, inability to directly contact potential participants, complexity of HIPAA-required documents, increased costs of recruitment, and an expanding administrative burden. Among the strategies addressed are preparatory research reviews, using clinical collaborators and staff liaisons, prescreening potential participants, minimizing participant burden during the consent process, enhancing participant follow-up, facilitating recruitment for future studies, and streamlining compliance training for staff.

Consent mechanisms for electronic health record systems: a simple yet unresolved issue.

Electronic health record (EHR) systems are now in widespread use in healthcare institutions worldwide. EHRs include sensitive health information and if they are integrated among healthcare providers, data can be accessible from many different sources. This leads to increased concern regarding invasion of privacy and confidentiality. Incorporating consent mechanisms into EHRs has the potential to enhance confidentiality. However there are both positive and negative effects from employing such mechanisms--they need to balance privacy, safety, consumer and public interest.

Security and access of health research data.

The objective of this study is to discover how to maximise the use of health research data without breaching the patient's confidentiality. To achieve this, we have examined available options identified in enhancing information security of health research data. It has been noted that there are gaps in information security for health research data. Our novel approach, searching through encrypted data is discussed in this paper.

Consumer involvement in consent document development: a multicenter cluster randomized trial to assess study participants' understanding.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread agreement on the importance of informed consent in clinical research, uncertainty remains about the adequacy of current consent procedures and documentation. METHODS: The objective of the study was to compare an informed consent document developed by a consumer group of potential study participants to one developed by the study investigators. The study was a cluster randomized, controlled study embedded in a 'parent' randomized controlled trial of 1092 participants with Gulf War veterans' illnesses recruited in 1999-2000 at 20 US medical centers. Centers were randomized to the investigator-developed or participant-developed consent document. The primary outcome measure was an Informed Consent Questionnaire-4 (ICQ-4), a validated four-item scale measuring self-reported participant understanding scored from 0 to 1. Secondary outcomes included the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 and measures of study refusal and adherence to the parent trial protocol. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between consent documents on the ICQ-4 score overall or at any of the time points. Mean (95% CI) treatment differences ranged from +0.020 (-0.015, 0.055) (better understanding) at entry to -0.021 (-0.054, 0.012) (worse understanding) at three-months for the participant versus the investigator document group. There were also no significant differences in satisfaction, adherence to the protocol, or in the proportion of patients who refused to participate in the trial. LIMITATIONS: The consumer group may not have been representative of the study participants and they did not suggest dramatic changes to the consent document. The outcome assessment questionnaire was not validated prior to the trial's initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer modification of the consent document did not lead to either benefit or harm in understanding, satisfaction, or study refusal and adherence rates. This study did demonstrate, however, that embedding consent studies in a clinical trial is feasible and can address important questions about informed consent without disrupting the primary study.