Creation and Administration of a Chiropractic Program Practical Classroom Preparticipation Screening Aimed to Prevent Student Injuries: A Descriptive Report.

Objective: The purpose of this descriptive report is to describe the development of a preparticipation risk assessment screening process for incoming students prior to participation in practical labs. Methods: A committee at the Palmer College of Chiropractic, Florida met to discuss a health history questionnaire, physical examination process, and course of action to have second-year students use their current knowledge to screen incoming students for possible clinical considerations of practice lab participation. The aim was to identify potential risk factors that may require application modification associated with performing and receiving adjustments and other hands-on lab activities within the curriculum. The preparticipation screening process, focused on general health and curriculum referenced chiropractic clinical considerations, and was created as an expansion of the existing informed consent procedures to screen incoming students prior to participating in palpation, technique, physical examination, and open adjusting labs in the chiropractic program. Any clinical considerations identified during the screening were referred to be fully evaluated by a third-year clinic intern and faculty-licensed chiropractor to maintain classroom safety standards for the students. Referred students were restricted from full classroom lab participation until recommendations from the clinic or outside licensed healthcare providers managing their concerns were received. Results: The program was implemented in April 2022. Eight out of the 48 students evaluated in the first group and 12 of the 81 in the second group had possible clinical considerations to participation and were referred appropriately for a full evaluation. In the third group, 35 out of 146 students with suspected clinical considerations to participation were identified. Of the 55 students referred out, all students are now actively participating in classroom activities. Fifteen have been cleared to return to classroom participation with no restrictions and the remaining 40 students have been released for participation with patient-specific restrictions as directed by their managing health care providers. Conclusion: The preparticipation screening process was implemented as all incoming students since the inception of the process have been screened, referred for evaluation when deemed appropriate, and cleared to participate in labs either with or without restrictions. This process has also demonstrated the possibility of identifying multiple clinical considerations for safe curricular participation while participating in doctor-patient simulated classroom activities. This process may be helpful for new students to recognize the patient history and examination procedures as an important aspect of a patient encounter prior to receiving treatment.

Open notes in psychotherapy: An exploratory mixed methods survey of psychotherapy students in Switzerland.

Background: In a growing number of countries, patients are offered access to their full online clinical records, including the narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, referred to as "open notes"). Even in countries with mature patient online record access, access to psychotherapy notes is not mandatory. To date, no research has explored the views of psychotherapy trainees about open notes. Objective: This study aimed to explore the opinions of psychotherapy trainees in Switzerland about patients' access to psychotherapists' free-text summaries. Methods: We administered a web-based mixed methods survey to 201 psychotherapy trainees to explore their familiarity with and opinions about the impact on patients and psychotherapy practice of offering patients online access to their psychotherapy notes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 42-item survey, and qualitative descriptive analysis was employed to examine written responses to four open-ended questions. Results: Seventy-two (35.8%) trainees completed the survey. Quantitative results revealed mixed views about open notes. 75% agreed that, in general open notes were a good idea, and 94.1% agreed that education about open notes should be part of psychotherapy training. When considering impact on patients and psychotherapy, four themes emerged: (a) negative impact on therapy; (b) positive impact on therapy; (c) impact on patients; and (d) documentation. Students identified concerns related to increase in workload, harm to the psychotherapeutic relationship, and compromised quality of records. They also identified many potential benefits including better patient communication and informed consent processes. In describing impact on different therapy types, students believed that open notes might have differential impact depending on the psychotherapy approaches. Conclusions: Sharing psychotherapy notes is not routine but is likely to expand. This mixed methods study provides timely insights into the views of psychotherapy trainees regarding the impact of open notes on patient care and psychotherapy practice.

Valid consent in the acute hospital setting: perspectives of patients and members of the public.

BACKGROUND: People who interact with healthcare services have an ethical and legal right to control their own lives, to make informed decisions, and to consent to what happens to them. For consent to be considered ethically and legally valid, three key criteria must be met: consent must be given voluntarily; people must be sufficiently informed of all options; and people should have capacity to make the decision to give or withhold their consent. AIM: This study set out to explore, through the use of surveys, the perspectives of patients and public in relation to consent. METHOD: Surveys were developed for patients and the public and administered paper based (patients) and through social media (public). RESULTS: One hundred and forty surveys were posted to patients, with a 38% response rate; 104 responses were received from the public. Ninety-six percent of patients were satisfied that the decision they made was informed; 100% felt they had made a voluntary decision; 98% felt the clinician seemed knowledgeable about the procedure. What matters most to the public were being informed about the risks associated with the proposed procedure and being assured that whatever choice they make they will receive the best care possible. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight interesting similarities and differences in relation to consent between members of the public thinking about a possible treatment, surgery, or procedure and those patients who have actually been through the process in the past 12 months. Recommendations have been developed on the basis of these findings to co-design improvements in consent practices.

Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent.

BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process. OBJECTIVE: We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form. METHODS: We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form. CONCLUSION: We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

All you Need is Trust? Public Perspectives on Consenting to Participate in Genomic Research in the Sri Lankan District of Colombo.

Engagement with genomic medicine and research has increased globally during the past few decades, including rapid developments in Sri Lanka. Genomic research is carried out in Sri Lanka on a variety of scales and with different aims and perspectives. However, there are concerns about participants' understanding of genomic research, including the validity of informed consent. This article reports a qualitative study aiming to explore the understanding, knowledge, and attitudes of the Sri Lankan public towards genomic medicine and to inform the development of an effective and appropriate process for informed consent in that setting. Purposive sampling was employed. Participants were recruited from a sub-group of the public in Colombo, Sri Lanka who had either consented or refused to donate genetic material for a biobank. Data were collected using face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Conventional content analysis was used. The analysis developed three key themes: a) 'Scientific literacy' describes an apparent lack of scientific knowledge that seems to affect a participant's ability to understand the research, b) 'Motivation' describes narratives about why participants chose (not) to take part in the research, despite not understanding it, and c) 'Trust' describes how trust served to mitigate the apparent ethical deficit created by not being fully informed. In this article, we argue that informed trust is likely an acceptable basis for consent, particularly in settings where scientific literacy might be low. However, researchers must work to be worthy of that trust and ensure that misconceptions are actively addressed.

Informed Consent for Psychotherapy: The Moderating Role of Therapeutic Alliance, Prior Knowledge and Autonomous Motivation on Decision-Making and Treatment Expectation.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is an ethical prerequisite for psychotherapy. There are no routinely used standardized strategies for obtaining informed consent. A new optimized informed consent consultation (OIC) strengthened treatment-relevant aspects. It remains unclear which factors influence the OIC efficacy regarding clinical and decision-related outcomes. METHODS: N = 122 adults were included in a randomized controlled online trial. Participants received an information brochure on psychotherapy (TAU; n = 61) or OIC + TAU (n = 61). The main and interaction effects of group allocation, therapeutic alliance, prior knowledge about psychotherapy and treatment motivation on treatment expectations, decisional conflict and capacity to consent were tested. Floodlight analyses were conducted for significant interactions. RESULTS: Large interaction effects were shown between treatment motivation and group allocation on treatment expectations (ß = -0.53) and between prior knowledge and group assignment on capacity to consent (ß = 0.68). The interaction between treatment motivation and group allocation was significant up to a motivation score of 5.54 (range: 1-7). The interaction between prior knowledge and group assignment was significant up to a knowledge score of 14.38 (range: 5-20). CONCLUSION: Moderator analyses indicated varying efficacy degrees for the OIC regarding decisional outcomes and expectation. Especially patients with little treatment motivation or low prior knowledge benefited from optimized information about the efficacy and possible side effects of psychotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PsychArchives (https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4929): 17.06.2021.

The right to know from the opt-out effectiveness system perspective in organ transplantation cases.

OBJECTIVE: Aim: This article examines the legal challenges associated with opt-out and opt-in systems in transplantation cases. It focuses on the low public knowledge and awareness of the national transplantation system, assessing its compliance with international prerequisites for an opt-out system. The analysis centres on the "right to know" perspective and the effectiveness of opt-out in organ transplantation. . PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and Methods: The research methodology includes scientific principles, public surveys, relevant regulations from the Republic of Latvia and EU, and grey literature on the health system and organ donation in the EU. Scientific articles from databases such as Scopus and WOS were selected based on criteria such as language (English and Latvian) and focus on living wills and comparisons of organ donation systems. Previous EU and national studies, reports, and court judgments were used to analyse data on opt-in and opt-out transplantation systems and policy efficiency in organ transplantation. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: Individuals' right to autonomy over their bodies extends even after death, encompassing the right to integrity. Organ donation, being a deeply personal choice reflecting one's values and beliefs, plays a crucial role in saving lives through transplantation. To enhance cooperation and donation rates, international regulations stress the significance of public awareness regarding organ and tissue transplantation. Unfortunately, inadequate compliance by authorities and low awareness pose ethical and legal dilemmas, potentially violating constitutional rights. Reports highlight limited public understanding of transplantation systems, raising concerns, particularly in opt-out systems. National governments bear the responsibility of safeguarding these rights and addressing challenges beyond legal means, thus establishing a more ethical organ donation system that upholds voluntariness, generosity, and individual autonomy.

The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting.

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

What Is "Key Information"? Consideration of the Reasons People Do or Do Not Take Part in Research.

We performed a qualitative review of 50 consent forms posted on Clinicaltrials.gov, examining the content of key information sections. We found that key information disclosures are typically focused on procedures, risks, potential benefits, and alternatives. Drawing upon reviews of the large literature examining the reasons people do or do not take part in research, we propose that these disclosures should be based more directly on what we know to be the real reasons why people choose to take part or refuse participation. We propose key information language for consideration by researchers and institutional review boards.

Reliability of clinical judgment for evaluation of informed consent in mental health settings and the validation of the Evaluation of Informed Consent to Treatment (EICT) scale.

Introduction: The competence assessment to give informed consent in the legal and healthcare settings is often performed merely through clinical judgment. Given the acknowledged limited reliability of clinician-based evaluation in the mental health sector, particularly for the assessment of competence to consent, our objective was to ascertain the dependability of clinical judgment when evaluating the ability of schizophrenia patients to make choices about their health. Methods: The potential convergence between clinical evaluation and scores from a new standardized assessment (the "Evaluation of Informed Consent to Treatment" - "EICT" scale) was therefore tested. The scale assesses four dimensions of competence, specifically how patients normally understand information relating to care (Understanding); how they evaluate the choice of treatment in terms of risk/benefit ratio (Evaluating); how they reason coherently in the decision-making process (Reasoning); and, finally, their ability to make a choice between treatment alternatives (Expressing a choice). Thirty-four outpatients with schizophrenia were evaluated for their competence to consent by five referring clinicians with different backgrounds (psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrist, geriatrician, anesthetist, and medico-legal doctor). Inter-raters variability was tested through correlation analyses between the scores obtained by the clinicians on a modified version of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF) designed specifically to subjectively assess functioning in each of the four competence dimensions. Two validated competence scales (Mac-CAT-T, SICIATRI-R), and a neuropsychological battery were also administered along with scales for evaluating neuropsychiatric symptoms severity and side effects of medication. Results: Clinical judgments of the individual specialists showed great inter-rater variability. Likewise, only weak/non-significant correlations were found between the EICT subscales and the respective clinicians-rated GAF scales. Conversely, solid correlations were found between the EICT and MacCAT-T subscales. As expected, healthy controls performed better in the ability to give informed consent to treatment, as measured by the three scales (i.e., EICT, MacCAT-T, and SICIATRI-R), and neuropsychological test performance. In the comparisons between patients who, according to the administered EICT, were able or not able to give informed consent to treatment, significant differences emerged for the Phonemic verbal fluency task (p = 0.038), Verbal judgments (p = 0.048), MacCAT-T subscales, and SICIATRI-R total score. Moreover, EICT exhibited excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.96 to 0.98 for the four subscales) while the Item Analysis, by measuring the correlation between each item of the EICT and the total score, was excellent for all items of all subscales (alphas ranging from 0.86 to 0.98). Discussion: In conclusion, our findings highlighted that the assessment of competence exclusively through clinical judgment is not fully reliable and needs the support of standardized tools. The EICT scale could therefore be useful in assessing general competence to consent both in healthcare and legal contexts, where it might be necessary to evaluate the effective competence of patients with psychiatric disorders. Finally, this scale could serve as a valuable tool for decisions regarding whether and to what extent a patient needs support.

"It is very hard to just accept this" - a qualitative study of palliative care teams' ethical reasoning when patients do not want information.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore how palliative care staff reason about the autonomy challenge that arises when a patient who has first said he wants full information appears to change his mind and rejects being informed. METHODS: The study had a qualitative and exploratory design. Participants (physicians, registred nurses, social workers, physiotherapists and occupational therapists) were recruited from palliative care teams in southern Sweden. Six separate focus group interviews with a total number of 33 participants were conducted. The teams were asked to discuss a fictional case of a man who first wants, then rejects, information about his situation. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke was undertaken to analyse data. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in three themes: Patients have a right to reject information, Questioning whether this patient WANTS to reject information and There are other values at stake, too. Although participants endorsed a right to reject information, they were unsure whether this right was relevant in this situation, and furthermore felt that it should be balanced against counteracting factors. The effect of such balancing was that participants would aim to find a way to present relevant information to the patient, but in a probing and flexible way. CONCLUSIONS: In their work with dying patients, palliative care staff meet many autonomy challenges. When faced with a choice to withhold information as per a patient's wishes, or to provide information with the patient's best interest in mind, staff find it hard to balance competing values. Staff also find it hard to balance their own interests against a purely professional stance. The overall strategy seems to be to look for caring ways to impart the information.

Alternative consent methods used in the multinational, pragmatic, randomised clinical trial SafeBoosC-III.

BACKGROUND: The process of obtaining prior informed consent for experimental treatment does not fit well into the clinical reality of acute and intensive care. The therapeutic window of interventions is often short, which may reduce the validity of the consent and the rate of enrolled participants, to delay trial completion and reduce the external validity of the results. Deferred consent and 'opt-out' are alternative consent methods. The SafeBoosC-III trial was a randomised clinical trial investigating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring in extremely preterm infants during the first 3 days after birth, starting within the first 6 h after birth. Prior, deferred and opt-out consent were all allowed by protocol. This study aimed to evaluate the use of different consent methods in the SafeBoosC-III trial, Furthermore, we aimed to describe and analyse concerns or complaints that arose during the first 6 months of trial conduct. METHODS: All 70 principal investigators were invited to join this descriptive ancillary study. Each principal investigator received a questionnaire on the use of consent methods in their centre during the SafeBoosC-III trial, including the possibility to describe any concerns related to the consent methods used during the first 6 months of the trial, as raised by the parents or the clinical staff. RESULTS: Data from 61 centres were available. In 43 centres, only prior informed consent was used: in seven, only deferred consent. No centres used the opt-out method only, but five centres used prior and deferred, five used prior, deferred and opt-out (all possibilities) and one used both deferred and opt-out. Six centres applied to use the opt-out method by their local research ethics committee but were denied using it. One centre applied to use deferred consent but was denied. There were only 23 registered concerns during the execution of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Consent by opt-out was allowed by the protocol in this multinational trial but only a few investigators opted for it and some research ethics boards did not accept its use. It is likely to need promotion by the clinical research community to unfold its potential.

To Reveal or Not to Reveal, That Is the Wrong Question: Thoughts about Clinical Writing in Psychoanalysis.

This paper plays with the possibilities of writing about psychoanalytic work in different ways with different levels of disclosure about both patient and analyst. Various issues around anonymity, confidentiality, consent and identity are explored, highlighting the many questions that come up. These issues of how to write psychoanalytically are also addressed from the point of view of culture and the sociopolitical gestalt of our time.

What We Do, What We Say, What We Don't Say: Confidentiality In The Publication Of Clinical Writing.

Questions concerning analysts' publication of material from the analyses of their patients have troubled the field of psychoanalysis since its inception. Disguise inevitably distorts the clinical material and is often insufficient to protect the patient from recognition. Asking the patient's consent for publication intrudes upon and alters the analytic process. While analysts have largely reached a consensus about the need for anonymity in published material, there is still considerable debate about the necessity for obtaining patients' consent when using their material for publication. In this paper, I will trace the evolving meanings of disguise, and particularly of consent, in the analytic literature. I will place a particular emphasis upon the differing theoretical belief systems that underlie the analyst's decision to ask consent from her patient or not to do so, and I will argue that, although decisions on asking consent remain a complex matter, such coherent belief systems should play an important part in analysts' decisions regarding consent. I will illustrate my thought processes and some clinical situations with brief examples, and I will conclude with some practical recommendations, with the hope that these will stimulate further discussion in the analytic community.

Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Surgery.

Pediatric surgeons need to learn to give as much importance to the ethical approach as they have been giving to the systemic methodology in their clinical approach all along. The law of the land and the governmental rules also need to be kept in mind before deciding the final solution. They need to always put medical problems in the background of ethical context, reach a few solutions keeping in mind the available resources, and apply the best solution in the interest of their pediatric patients.

Assessing the impact of mixed reality-assisted informed consent: A study protocol.

Background: Informed consent is a crucial aspect of modern medicine, but it can be challenging due to the complexity of the information involved. Mixed reality (MR) has emerged as a promising technology to improve communication. However, there is a lack of comprehensive research on the impact of MR on medical informed consent. The proposed research protocol provides a solid foundation for conducting future investigations and developing MR-based protocols that can enhance patients' understanding and engagement in the decision-making process. Methods: This study will employ a randomized controlled trial design. Two arms will be defined: MR-assisted informed consent (MRaIC) as the experimental arm and conventional informed consent (CIC) as the control arm consent, with 52 patients in each group. The protocol includes the use of questionnaires to analyze the anxiety levels and the awareness of the procedure that the patient is going to perform to study the impact of MRaIC versus CIC before medical procedures. Results: The study will evaluate the impact of MR on patients' information comprehension, engagement during the process of obtaining informed consent, emotional reactions, and consent decisions. Ethical concerns will be addressed. Conclusion: This study protocol provides a comprehensive approach to investigate the impact of MR on medical informed consent. The findings may contribute to a better understanding of the effects of MR on information comprehension, engagement during the process of obtaining informed consent, psychological experience, consent decisions, and ethical considerations. The integration of MR technology has the potential to enhance surgical communication practices and improve the informed consent process.

Qualitative Analysis of Patient Decisional Needs for Medications to Treat Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The development of tools to support shared decision-making should be informed by patients' decisional needs and treatment preferences, which are largely unknown for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) pharmacotherapy decisions. We aimed to identify patients' decisional needs when considering HFrEF medication options. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. We recruited patients with HFrEF from 2 Canadian ambulatory HF clinics and clinicians from Canadian HF guideline panels, HF clinics, and Canadian HF Society membership. We identified themes through inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants included 15 patients and 12 clinicians. Six themes and associated subthemes emerged related to HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision-making: (1) patient decisional needs included lack of awareness of a choice or options, difficult decision timing and stage, information overload, and inadequate motivation, support and resources; (2) patients' decisional conflict varied substantially, driven by unclear trade-offs; (3) treatment attribute preferences-patients focused on both benefits and downsides of treatment, whereas clinicians centered discussion on benefits; (4) quality of life-patients' definition of quality of life depended on pre-HF activity, though most patients demonstrated adaptability in adjusting their daily activities to manage HF; (5) shared decision-making process-clinicians' described a process more akin to informed consent; (6) decision support-multimedia decision aids, virtual appointments, and primary-care comanagement emerged as potential enablers of shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF have several decisional needs, which are consistent with those that may respond to decision aids. These findings can inform the development of HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision aids to address these decisional needs and facilitate shared decision-making.

Landscape analysis of available European data sources amenable for machine learning and recommendations on usability for rare diseases screening.

BACKGROUND: Patient registries and databases are essential tools for advancing clinical research in the area of rare diseases, as well as for enhancing patient care and healthcare planning. The primary aim of this study is a landscape analysis of available European data sources amenable to machine learning (ML) and their usability for Rare Diseases screening, in terms of findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable(FAIR), legal, and business considerations. Second, recommendations will be proposed to provide a better understanding of the health data ecosystem. METHODS: In the period of March 2022 to December 2022, a cross-sectional study using a semi-structured questionnaire was conducted among potential respondents, identified as main contact person of a health-related databases. The design of the self-completed questionnaire survey instrument was based on information drawn from relevant scientific publications, quantitative and qualitative research, and scoping review on challenges in mapping European rare disease (RD) databases. To determine database characteristics associated with the adherence to the FAIR principles, legal and business aspects of database management Bayesian models were fitted. RESULTS: In total, 330 unique replies were processed and analyzed, reflecting the same number of distinct databases (no duplicates included). In terms of geographical scope, we observed 24.2% (n = 80) national, 10.0% (n = 33) regional, 8.8% (n = 29) European, and 5.5% (n = 18) international registries coordinated in Europe. Over 80.0% (n = 269) of the databases were still active, with approximately 60.0% (n = 191) established after the year 2000 and 71.0% last collected new data in 2022. Regarding their geographical scope, European registries were associated with the highest overall FAIR adherence, while registries with regional and "other" geographical scope were ranked at the bottom of the list with the lowest proportion. Responders' willingness to share data as a contribution to the goals of the Screen4Care project was evaluated at the end of the survey. This question was completed by 108 respondents; however, only 18 of them (16.7%) expressed a direct willingness to contribute to the project by sharing their databases. Among them, an equal split between pro-bono and paid services was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The most important results of our study demonstrate not enough sufficient FAIR principles adherence and low willingness of the EU health databases to share patient information, combined with some legislation incapacities, resulting in barriers to the secondary use of data.

Informed Consent and Digit Replantation: Current State and Recommendations for Ethical Patient Care.

The importance of informed consent and the value of shared decision-making in hand surgery are well-established and particularly critical in the setting of digit amputation when considering replantation. Informed consent requires an understanding of not only the immediate and long-term risks and benefits of surgery, as well as the risks and alternatives involved, but also the capacity of the patient to make a medical decision. However, patients who have acutely sustained a disfiguring trauma are often in distress and may not fully process the consent discussion. Digit replantation is an "elective emergency"-the decision must be made immediately but is not lifesaving-which poses a difficult dilemma: are surgeons acting in patients' best interests by pursuing replantation if we engage those patients in informed consent discussions when they may not have capacity? This article explores the relevant bioethical principles associated with digit replantation, summarizes updated literature regarding informed consent and shared decision-making, and provides recommendations for patient education materials to standardize informed consent discussions for surgeons approaching patients at this unique intersection of considering revision amputation versus replantation.

[Nationally standardized broad consent in practice: initial experiences, current developments, and critical assessment]. / National standardisierter Broad Consent in der Praxis: erste Erfahrungen, aktuelle Entwicklungen und kritische Betrachtungen.

BACKGROUND: The digitalization in the healthcare sector promises a secondary use of patient data in the sense of a learning healthcare system. For this, the Medical Informatics Initiative's (MII) Consent Working Group has created an ethical and legal basis with standardized consent documents. This paper describes the systematically monitored introduction of these documents at the MII sites. METHODS: The monitoring of the introduction included regular online surveys, an in-depth analysis of the introduction processes at selected sites, and an assessment of the documents in use. In addition, inquiries and feedback from a large number of stakeholders were evaluated. RESULTS: The online surveys showed that 27 of the 32 sites have gradually introduced the consent documents productively, with a current total of 173,289 consents. The analysis of the implementation procedures revealed heterogeneous organizational conditions at the sites. The requirements of various stakeholders were met by developing and providing supplementary versions of the consent documents and additional information materials. DISCUSSION: The introduction of the MII consent documents at the university hospitals creates a uniform legal basis for the secondary use of patient data. However, the comprehensive implementation within the sites remains challenging. Therefore, minimum requirements for patient information and supplementary recommendations for best practice must be developed. The further development of the national legal framework for research will not render the participation and transparency mechanisms developed here obsolete.