Finding family for prospective consent in emergency research

Abstract

Background Innovative approaches are needed to allow for research in the emergency setting while not compromising either the rights or the interests of the subjects enrolled in such research. The emergency consent exception was developed to meet this need. Purpose The goal was to describe the timing of initial contact with relatives and the timing of obtaining informed consent for a research study in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Methods The study was designed as a prospective, observational study of 129 patients enrolled in an emergency study of traumatic brain injury conducted under the emergency consent exception. Detailed descriptive information was collected both about the availability of relatives of patients enrolled in a study of traumatic brain injury to give prospective consent within the time period required for entering the study and about the extent to which they did give prospective consent during that time period. Results The number of patients with relatives who could be contacted by research staff increased with time after injury, with 3% (95% CI=0 to 6%), 25% (95% CI=18 to 32%), and 43% (95% CI=35 to 52%) having family at 1, 3, and 6 h, respectively postinjury. An additional 15% were available within the next 6 h. The median time after injury to the initial family contact by the research staff was 2.0 h for patients who had relatives already present at the hospital and 5.7 h for patients whose family had already been contacted by the hospital. The percentage of family members actually giving prospective research consent was much smaller; only 18% actually gave prospective consent within 6 h postinjury. The proportion of critically ill patients with family available to give prospective consent for enrollment in emergency research studies depends primarily on the time period allowed for enrollment in the individual study and the length of the transition from initial contact to completed prospective consent. Limitations The study was performed in a specific patient population and may not be generalizable to other settings. Conclusions Careful attention should be paid by investigators and IRBs as to whether the emergency consent exception is really required for a particular study, or whether the study could proceed using only prospective consent with a longer recruitment period, more research sites, and a higher yield of available family members giving prospective consent. Measures that could shorten the time between initial contact and obtaining informed consent (for example, allowing consent over the phone rather than requiring written consent) might decrease the need for the emergency consent exception. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 631—637. http://ctj.sagepub.com