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.

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.

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.