Ethical procedures and patient consent differ in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Research ethics approvals, procedures and requirements for institutional research ethics committees vary considerably by country and by type of organisation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the requirements and procedures of research ethics committees, details of patient information and informed consent based on a multicentre European trial. DESIGN: Survey of European hospitals participating in the prospective observational study on chronic postsurgical pain (euCPSP) using electronic questionnaires. SETTING: Twenty-four hospitals in 11 European countries. PARTICIPANTS: From the 24 hospitals, 23 local investigators responded; 23 answers were analysed. OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of research ethics procedures and committee requirements from the perspective of clinical researchers. Comparison of the institutions' procedures regarding patient information and consent. Description of further details such as costs and the duration of the approval process. RESULTS: The approval process lasted from less than 2 weeks up to more than 2 months with financial fees varying between 0 and 575 &OV0556;. In 20 hospitals, a patient information sheet of variable length (half page up to two pages) was provided. Requirements for patients' informed consent differed. Written informed consent was mandatory at 12, oral at 10 and no form of consent at one hospital. Details such as enough time for consideration, possibility for withdrawal and risks/benefits of participation were provided in 25 to 30% of the institutions. CONCLUSION: There is a considerable variation in the administrative requirements for approval procedures by research ethics committees in Europe. This results in variation of the extent of information and consent procedures for the patients involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: euCPSP in Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01467102; PAIN-OUT in Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02083835.

Standards for definitions and use of outcome measures for clinical effectiveness research in perioperative medicine: European Perioperative Clinical Outcome (EPCO) definitions: a statement from the ESA-ESICM joint taskforce on perioperative outcome measures.

There is a need for large trials that test the clinical effectiveness of interventions in the field of perioperative medicine. Clinical outcome measures used in such trials must be robust, clearly defined and patient-relevant. Our objective was to develop standards for the use of clinical outcome measures to strengthen the methodological quality of perioperative medicine research. A literature search was conducted using PubMed and opinion leaders worldwide were invited to nominate papers that they believed the group should consider. The full texts of relevant articles were reviewed by the taskforce members and then discussed to reach a consensus on the required standards. The report was then circulated to opinion leaders for comment and review. This report describes definitions for 22 individual adverse events with a system of severity grading for each. In addition, four composite outcome measures were identified, which were designed to evaluate postoperative outcomes. The group also agreed on standards for four outcome measures for the evaluation of healthcare resource use and quality of life. Guidance for use of these outcome measures is provided, with particular emphasis on appropriate duration of follow-up. This report provides clearly defined and patient-relevant outcome measures for large clinical trials in perioperative medicine. These outcome measures may also be of use in clinical audit. This report is intended to complement and not replace other related work to improve assessment of clinical outcomes following specific surgical procedures.

Incidence of severe critical events in paediatric anaesthesia (APRICOT): a prospective multicentre observational study in 261 hospitals in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the incidence of severe critical events in children undergoing general anaesthesia in Europe. We aimed to identify the incidence, nature, and outcome of severe critical events in children undergoing anaesthesia, and the associated potential risk factors. METHODS: The APRICOT study was a prospective observational multicentre cohort study of children from birth to 15 years of age undergoing elective or urgent anaesthesia for diagnostic or surgical procedures. Children were eligible for inclusion during a 2-week period determined prospectively by each centre. There were 261 participating centres across 33 European countries. The primary endpoint was the occurence of perioperative severe critical events requiring immediate intervention. A severe critical event was defined as the occurrence of respiratory, cardiac, allergic, or neurological complications requiring immediate intervention and that led (or could have led) to major disability or death. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01878760. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 31 127 anaesthetic procedures in 30 874 children with a mean age of 6·35 years (SD 4·50) were included. The incidence of perioperative severe critical events was 5·2% (95% CI 5·0-5·5) with an incidence of respiratory critical events of 3·1% (2·9-3·3). Cardiovascular instability occurred in 1·9% (1·7-2·1), with an immediate poor outcome in 5·4% (3·7-7·5) of these cases. The all-cause 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 10 in 10 000. This was independent of type of anaesthesia. Age (relative risk 0·88, 95% CI 0·86-0·90; p<0·0001), medical history, and physical condition (1·60, 1·40-1·82; p<0·0001) were the major risk factors for a serious critical event. Multivariate analysis revealed evidence for the beneficial effect of years of experience of the most senior anaesthesia team member (0·99, 0·981-0·997; p<0·0048 for respiratory critical events, and 0·98, 0·97-0·99; p=0·0039 for cardiovascular critical events), rather than the type of health institution or providers. INTERPRETATION: This study highlights a relatively high rate of severe critical events during the anaesthesia management of children for surgical or diagnostic procedures in Europe, and a large variability in the practice of paediatric anaesthesia. These findings are substantial enough to warrant attention from national, regional, and specialist societies to target education of anaesthesiologists and their teams and implement strategies for quality improvement in paediatric anaesthesia. FUNDING: European Society of Anaesthesiology.