Informed Consent in Emergency Research: Consensus Statement From the Coalition Conference of Acute Resuscitation and Critical Care Researchers

Michelle H. Biros, Roger J. Lewis, Carin M. Olson, Richard O. Cummins, Jeffrey W. Runge, Norman Fost

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

A coalition conference of acute resuscitation researchers was held to discuss the feasibility of applying current federal research regulations regarding informed consent to the emergency setting. This article presents consensus recommendations for regulatory changes for consent in emergency research. —Representatives from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and the American Heart Association identified several professional organizations as stakeholders in this issue, including research, clinical, bioethics, legal, and patient advocacy groups. The Office for Protection From Research Risks (OPRR), the Food And Drug Administration (FDA), and staff from specific legislative offices were also invited to observe. Forty-three participants attended, including representatives from 12 professional organizations, five medical institutions, and the FDA and OPRR. This was a closed meeting. Participants were self-funded or sponsored by their professional organizations. —Before the meeting, a draft of a position statement was developed by the conference organizers based on the current literature and discussions with experts in the field. This draft, copies of the current federal research regulations, and supporting articles were distributed before the conference. —Participants rotated through moderated discussion sessions to comment on subsections of the draft. Following discussion, a working draft was developed and distributed to each participant and represented organizational board for final review. All comments were considered in the final version of the document. —We believe there are circumstances when it is not feasible to obtain prospective or proxy consent for enrollment into an emergency research protocol. In these circumstances, patients are vulnerable, not only to research risks, but also to being denied potentially beneficial therapy when there is no known effective treatment for their life-threatening condition. We offer recommendations that should be met when the critical nature of the illness or injury or the need to apply an investigational therapy rapidly precludes prospective consent for participation in emergency research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1283-1287
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume273
Issue number16
DOIs
StatePublished - 1995
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Critical Care
Informed Consent
Resuscitation
Emergencies
Research Personnel
Research
United States Food and Drug Administration
Patient Advocacy
Bioethics
Investigational Therapies
Proxy
Critical Illness
Wounds and Injuries
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Informed Consent in Emergency Research : Consensus Statement From the Coalition Conference of Acute Resuscitation and Critical Care Researchers. / Biros, Michelle H.; Lewis, Roger J.; Olson, Carin M.; Cummins, Richard O.; Runge, Jeffrey W.; Fost, Norman.

In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 273, No. 16, 1995, p. 1283-1287.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Biros, Michelle H. ; Lewis, Roger J. ; Olson, Carin M. ; Cummins, Richard O. ; Runge, Jeffrey W. ; Fost, Norman. / Informed Consent in Emergency Research : Consensus Statement From the Coalition Conference of Acute Resuscitation and Critical Care Researchers. In: Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995 ; Vol. 273, No. 16. pp. 1283-1287.
@article{a2399ccf266a4c72bb614a7e3d7cd408,
title = "Informed Consent in Emergency Research: Consensus Statement From the Coalition Conference of Acute Resuscitation and Critical Care Researchers",
abstract = "A coalition conference of acute resuscitation researchers was held to discuss the feasibility of applying current federal research regulations regarding informed consent to the emergency setting. This article presents consensus recommendations for regulatory changes for consent in emergency research. —Representatives from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and the American Heart Association identified several professional organizations as stakeholders in this issue, including research, clinical, bioethics, legal, and patient advocacy groups. The Office for Protection From Research Risks (OPRR), the Food And Drug Administration (FDA), and staff from specific legislative offices were also invited to observe. Forty-three participants attended, including representatives from 12 professional organizations, five medical institutions, and the FDA and OPRR. This was a closed meeting. Participants were self-funded or sponsored by their professional organizations. —Before the meeting, a draft of a position statement was developed by the conference organizers based on the current literature and discussions with experts in the field. This draft, copies of the current federal research regulations, and supporting articles were distributed before the conference. —Participants rotated through moderated discussion sessions to comment on subsections of the draft. Following discussion, a working draft was developed and distributed to each participant and represented organizational board for final review. All comments were considered in the final version of the document. —We believe there are circumstances when it is not feasible to obtain prospective or proxy consent for enrollment into an emergency research protocol. In these circumstances, patients are vulnerable, not only to research risks, but also to being denied potentially beneficial therapy when there is no known effective treatment for their life-threatening condition. We offer recommendations that should be met when the critical nature of the illness or injury or the need to apply an investigational therapy rapidly precludes prospective consent for participation in emergency research.",
author = "Biros, {Michelle H.} and Lewis, {Roger J.} and Olson, {Carin M.} and Cummins, {Richard O.} and Runge, {Jeffrey W.} and Norman Fost",
year = "1995",
doi = "10.1001/jama.1995.03520400053044",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "273",
pages = "1283--1287",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0098-7484",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "16",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Informed Consent in Emergency Research

T2 - Consensus Statement From the Coalition Conference of Acute Resuscitation and Critical Care Researchers

AU - Biros, Michelle H.

AU - Lewis, Roger J.

AU - Olson, Carin M.

AU - Cummins, Richard O.

AU - Runge, Jeffrey W.

AU - Fost, Norman

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - A coalition conference of acute resuscitation researchers was held to discuss the feasibility of applying current federal research regulations regarding informed consent to the emergency setting. This article presents consensus recommendations for regulatory changes for consent in emergency research. —Representatives from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and the American Heart Association identified several professional organizations as stakeholders in this issue, including research, clinical, bioethics, legal, and patient advocacy groups. The Office for Protection From Research Risks (OPRR), the Food And Drug Administration (FDA), and staff from specific legislative offices were also invited to observe. Forty-three participants attended, including representatives from 12 professional organizations, five medical institutions, and the FDA and OPRR. This was a closed meeting. Participants were self-funded or sponsored by their professional organizations. —Before the meeting, a draft of a position statement was developed by the conference organizers based on the current literature and discussions with experts in the field. This draft, copies of the current federal research regulations, and supporting articles were distributed before the conference. —Participants rotated through moderated discussion sessions to comment on subsections of the draft. Following discussion, a working draft was developed and distributed to each participant and represented organizational board for final review. All comments were considered in the final version of the document. —We believe there are circumstances when it is not feasible to obtain prospective or proxy consent for enrollment into an emergency research protocol. In these circumstances, patients are vulnerable, not only to research risks, but also to being denied potentially beneficial therapy when there is no known effective treatment for their life-threatening condition. We offer recommendations that should be met when the critical nature of the illness or injury or the need to apply an investigational therapy rapidly precludes prospective consent for participation in emergency research.

AB - A coalition conference of acute resuscitation researchers was held to discuss the feasibility of applying current federal research regulations regarding informed consent to the emergency setting. This article presents consensus recommendations for regulatory changes for consent in emergency research. —Representatives from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and the American Heart Association identified several professional organizations as stakeholders in this issue, including research, clinical, bioethics, legal, and patient advocacy groups. The Office for Protection From Research Risks (OPRR), the Food And Drug Administration (FDA), and staff from specific legislative offices were also invited to observe. Forty-three participants attended, including representatives from 12 professional organizations, five medical institutions, and the FDA and OPRR. This was a closed meeting. Participants were self-funded or sponsored by their professional organizations. —Before the meeting, a draft of a position statement was developed by the conference organizers based on the current literature and discussions with experts in the field. This draft, copies of the current federal research regulations, and supporting articles were distributed before the conference. —Participants rotated through moderated discussion sessions to comment on subsections of the draft. Following discussion, a working draft was developed and distributed to each participant and represented organizational board for final review. All comments were considered in the final version of the document. —We believe there are circumstances when it is not feasible to obtain prospective or proxy consent for enrollment into an emergency research protocol. In these circumstances, patients are vulnerable, not only to research risks, but also to being denied potentially beneficial therapy when there is no known effective treatment for their life-threatening condition. We offer recommendations that should be met when the critical nature of the illness or injury or the need to apply an investigational therapy rapidly precludes prospective consent for participation in emergency research.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028963589&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028963589&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.1995.03520400053044

DO - 10.1001/jama.1995.03520400053044

M3 - Article

C2 - 7715041

AN - SCOPUS:0028963589

VL - 273

SP - 1283

EP - 1287

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0098-7484

IS - 16

ER -