• David Wendler, Neal W Dickert, Robert Silbergleit, Scott Y H Kim, and Jeremy Brown.
• 1Department of Bioethics, NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 3Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA. 4Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. 5Office of Emergency Care Research, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
• Crit. Care Med. 2017 Jan 1; 45 (1): e105-e110.

ObjectivesThere has been significant debate over what consent process, if any, should be used for clinical trials that compare two or more interventions within the standard of care. Some claim that all clinical trials should obtain in-depth research consent because they use subjects to obtain data for the benefit of future patients. Others argue that clinical trials that are limited to interventions within the standard of care do not need to obtain research consent at all. Settling this debate is especially challenging in the emergency setting. The potential for significant morbidity and mortality provides a strong reason to obtain research consent for standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. Yet, the emergency setting also introduces significant barriers to traditional in-depth research consent. The present article considers to what extent a targeted consent process can resolve these tensions.Data SynthesisWe first identified the ethical goals that are promoted by obtaining consent for standard-of-care research and the barriers to obtaining consent that arise in the emergency setting. We then evaluated whether, despite the barriers, it is possible to develop a targeted consent process that promotes the goals for consent in the context of standard-of-care trials.ConclusionsTargeted consent offers an ethically appropriate way to obtain consent for many standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. For studies subject to U.S. regulations, and those subject to other regulations that include similar consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure and written form provide a way to satisfy research regulations without blocking valuable studies. For trials that qualify for a waiver of the consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure is preferable to waiving consent, provided a slight delay is consistent with appropriate care, and there is a capacitated patient or surrogate available.

10 keywords...

hide…