Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
-
Although subject protection is the cornerstone of medical ethics, when considered in the context of research using emergency exception from informed consent, its success is debatable. The participants of a breakout session at the 2005 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussed the issues surrounding subject protection and advanced the following recommendations. 1) There are no outcome measures that define "protection"; therefore, it is not currently known whether or not subjects are protected under the current rules. 2) Care must be taken to protect not only the individual from harm during research but also to protect society from unregulated research in other countries and an inability to appropriately advance medical knowledge. 3) Some surrogate markers/methods of protection whose efficacies are debatable include data safety monitoring board activity, the community consultation and public notification (CC/PN) process, and institutional review board approval. 4) Minimal-risk studies should be held to different standards of protection than those that involve more significant risk to the subject. 5) A handful of studies have been published regarding community consultation and notification, and the majority are case studies. Those that are specifically designed to discover the most successful methods are hindered by a lack of formal outcomes measures and tend to have negative results. 6) Follow-up data from the CC/PN process should be disclosed to the Food and Drug Administration and incorporated into study designs. 7) Focus groups and/or random-digit dialing have been suggested as promising methods for fulfilling the CC/PN requirements. 8) Studies need to be funded and performed that formally investigate the best means of CC/PN. 9) More funding for this research should be a priority in the emergency medicine and critical care communities. More data regarding terminated studies should be made available to the research community. 10) Quantifiable markers of success for CC/PN must be validated so that research may determine the most successful methods. 11) Data regarding subjects' and family members' experiences with exception from informed consent studies need to be obtained.
-
Under the Final Rule enacted in 1996 by the United States Food and Drug Administration and Office of Health and Human Services, community consultation and public notification are required when emergency research is to be conducted in the absence of prior informed consent by subjects. There is a dearth of published recommendations concerning the degree to which communities must be aware of the existence and parameters of a study for which informed consent might not be obtained prior to enrollment. It is argued that effective community consultation requires empirical measurement of the dynamics of community, and that ordinary notions of community may not capture the populations at greatest risk or those who might for other reasons figure most prominently in community consultation. A pragmatic approach to community consultation would establish benchmarks for such measures, and it is argued that such an approach is possible given the correct empirical measures.
-
Comparative Study
The contribution of the subjective component of the Canadian Pulmonary Embolism Score to the overall score in emergency department patients.
Clinicians frequently use their experience to determine the pretest probability of pulmonary embolism (PE), although scoring systems are promoted as being more reliable. The Canadian Pulmonary Embolism Score (CPES) combines six objective questions and one subjective question. The CPES has been validated and appears to be useful for risk-stratifying patients. However, research suggests that subjective gestalt performs similarly to the CPES, and the influence of the subjective question on the predictive value of the CPES is not clear. ⋯ The predictive value of the CPES appears to be derived primarily from its subjective component.