Legal and Ethical Issues in Clinical Pharmacy Research — Informed Consent, Part II

1980 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-125
Author(s):  
Dev S. Pathak ◽  
Thomas S. Foster ◽  
Cynthia L. Raehl

Preparation of an effective informed consent document presents significant problems to those investigators not familiar with federal and institutional requirements. This article examines a detailed format for preparation of an informed consent instrument. Prepared by the authors and supplied to potential clinical investigators by a university institutional review committee, the guidelines incorporate Department of Health, Education, and Welfare regulations. An example consent form is provided.

1980 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-43
Author(s):  
Dev S. Pathak ◽  
Thomas S. Foster ◽  
Cynthia L. Raehl

The continued growth of hospital and clinical pharmacy should be paralleled by the development of sound research methods justifying innovative practices. Such research will, on occasion, require experimentation involving human subjects. The principal means of assuring that the welfare of research participants is not compromised is through the procurement of effective informed consent. Pharmacists, like many other health professionals, have had relatively little exposure to methodology involved in the writing of an informed consent instrument. A comprehensive document must not only conform to the requirements of federal regulatory agencies, but must also satisfy various institutional guidelines. Past instances of unethical human experimentation are discussed, and a format for preparation of an informed consent instrument is examined. Circumstances requiring informed consent and identification of the basic elements of consent are also explained.


2015 ◽  
Vol 06 (03) ◽  
pp. 466-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Manion ◽  
K. Hsieh ◽  
M. Harris ◽  
S. H. Fenton

Summary Background: Despite efforts to provide standard definitions of terms such as “medical record”, “computer-based patient record”, “electronic medical record” and “electronic health record”, the terms are still used interchangeably. Initiatives like data and information governance, research biorepositories, and learning health systems require availability and reuse of data, as well as common understandings of the scope for specific purposes. Lacking widely shared definitions, utilization of the afore-mentioned terms in research informed consent documents calls to question whether all participants in the research process — patients, information technology and regulatory staff, and the investigative team — fully understand what data and information they are asking to obtain and agreeing to share. Objectives: This descriptive study explored the terminology used in research informed consent documents when describing patient data and information, asking the question “Does the use of the term “medical record” in the context of a research informed consent document accurately represent the scope of the data involved?” Methods: Informed consent document templates found on 17 Institutional Review Board (IRB) websites with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) were searched for terms that appeared to be describing the data resources to be accessed. The National Library of Medicine’s (NLM) Terminology Services was searched for definitions provided by key standards groups that deposit terminologies with the NLM. Discussion: The results suggest research consent documents are using outdated terms to describe patient information, health care terminology systems need to consider the context of research for use cases, and that there is significant work to be done to assure the HIPAA Omnibus Rule is applied to contemporary activities such as biorepositories and learning health systems. Conclusions: “Medical record”, a term used extensively in research informed consent documents, is ambiguous and does not serve us well in the context of contemporary information management and governance. Citation: Fenton SH, Manion F, Hsieh K, Harris M. Informed Consent: Does Anyone Really Understand What Is Contained In The Medical Record? Appl Clin Inform 2015; 6: 466–477http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2014-09-SOA-0081


2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G. McManus, MD, MCR ◽  
Annette McClinton, RN, BSN ◽  
Melinda J. Morton, MD, MPH

Background: The conduct of research in the combat and disaster environments shares many of the same fundamental principles and regulations that govern civilian biomedical research. However, Department of Defense research protocols stipulate additional requirements designed to preserve servicemembers’ informed consent rights, uphold ethical standards, and protect sensitive or classified information.The authors reviewed studies that have been approved for the conduct of research in current combat operations and also discuss their applicability in disaster settings.Methods: This is a descriptive, retrospective study of protocols that have currently been approved for conduct of research in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.Results: During the period of July 2005 through October 2007, 38 retrospective chart review protocols, seven prospective studies requiring consent or an alteration of the consent document and 12 prospective observational studies were submitted through the Deployed Research Committee in Iraq for review and approval at the Brooke Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB). A total of 55 protocols were approved by the IRB for implementation in the Iraq combat theater. Most of these protocols involved trauma care treatment. One prospective study investigating the effects of blast-concussive injuries on US Soldiers in Iraq requiring informed consent was reviewed and approved.Conclusions: The conduct of military medical research has, and will make, significant and lasting contributions to the practice of both civilian and military medicine. Although policies and regulations to conduct research and release-associated findings often seem cumbersome and stringent, these added hurdles serve not only to ensure protection of the rights of human subjects during a time of potentially increased vulnerability, but also to protect the security interests of US troops. Many of these principles and practices are directly applicable in disaster research environments.


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-52
Author(s):  
Madhuri Patel ◽  
Kannan Sridharan ◽  
Jayesh Patel

1985 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Bray ◽  
Juneau N. Shepherd ◽  
J. Ray Hays

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e033299
Author(s):  
Erica S Spatz ◽  
Haikun Bao ◽  
Jeph Herrin ◽  
Vrunda Desai ◽  
Sriram Ramanan ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo determine whether informed consent for surgical procedures performed in US hospitals meet a minimum standard of quality, we developed and tested a quality measure of informed consent documents.DesignRetrospective observational study of informed consent documents.Setting25 US hospitals, diverse in size and geographical region.CohortAmong Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing elective procedures in participating hospitals, we assessed the informed consent documents associated with these procedures. We aimed to review 100 qualifying procedures per hospital; the selected sample was representative of the procedure types performed at each hospital.Primary outcomeThe outcome was hospital quality of informed consent documents, assessed by two independent raters using an eight-item instrument previously developed for this measure and scored on a scale of 0–20, with 20 representing the highest quality. The outcome was reported as the mean hospital document score and the proportion of documents meeting a quality threshold of 10. Reliability of the hospital score was determined based on subsets of randomly selected documents; face validity was assessed using stakeholder feedback.ResultsAmong 2480 informed consent documents from 25 hospitals, mean hospital scores ranged from 0.6 (95% CI 0.3 to 0.9) to 10.8 (95% CI 10.0 to 11.6). Most hospitals had at least one document score at least 10 out of 20 points, but only two hospitals had >50% of their documents score above a 10-point threshold. The Spearman correlation of the measures score was 0.92. Stakeholders reported that the measure was important, though some felt it did not go far enough to assess informed consent quality.ConclusionAll hospitals performed poorly on a measure of informed consent document quality, though there was some variation across hospitals. Measuring the quality of hospital’s informed consent documents can serve as a first step in driving attention to gaps in quality.


1991 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-71
Author(s):  
Clarence L. Fortner ◽  
Paul J. Vilk

Investigational drugs are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are not available for widespread patient use. They are screened and evaluated extensively before they are administered to humans in clinical trials. The clinical development process is divided into three phases: phase I, II, and III. Protocols for the investigational agent in each of these phases must be approved by an institutional review board and the patient must be informed of the risks of the study and sign an informed consent document. Once adequate clinical data are collected and analyzed, the information is submitted to the FDA for their review and approval for marketing. Prior to that approval, the FDA may approve broader distribution of the drug for specific indications under a Treatment Investigational New Drug (IND) or the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) group C mechanism. Pharmacists can play a unique role during development of the Treatment IND by contributing to design of the protocol and screening patient qualifications. The investigator of the clinical trial has responsibility for the conduct of the clinical trial and must comply with FDA regulations and sponsor policies. This is a US government work. There are no restrictions on its use.


2011 ◽  
Vol 155 (5) ◽  
pp. 316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Desch ◽  
Jun Li ◽  
Scott Kim ◽  
Naomi Laventhal ◽  
Kristen Metzger ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Hua CHEN ◽  
Yonghui MA

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.知情同意作為一項權利,患者成為闡述其體驗的首要主體。實證調查表明,患者對於其權利認知還存在不足,多數偏好於患者與家庭共用模式;在實踐中,知情與同意在主體層面存在分離現象。對於病情的告知傾向於任選模式,但家庭是不可或缺的告知物件,對於診療、護理等相關資訊,傾向於患者模式;在同意方面,家屬成為獲取同意的主體。經濟因素成為患方“不同意”的首要原因。對於不同維度的調查表明,基於女性相對脆弱性特點,他們對於家庭的依賴性更強,其維權意識更強;在年齡層面,青少年對於權利的認知更理性,具有現代契約精神。在地域層面,縣級以上城市居民對於權利認知度更高;職業往往與教育程度相關,表明農民的個體依賴性更強;政府機關以及事業單位人員個體主體性更強。為此,需要加強患者權利教育,提升主體意識;對醫務人員加強職業道德教育,履行告知義務,強化醫患信任;深化醫療衛生體制改革,為知情同意的踐行提供空間與時間。An informed consent document is vital for all surgical procedures and medical treatments. Proper documentation and counseling of patients is important for informed consent. Opinion polls conducted in this essay show that the majority of people in China today have accepted informed consent as a legally binding medical policy, yet they do not fully understand the ethical and legal connotations involved, particularly the idea of the patient’s autonomy. As a result, the patient’s own experience as a first-person narrative is often ignored and his/her subjectivity is blurred when his/her family’s subjectivity intervenes. According to the essay, the problem appears when liberalism—which emphasizes individual autonomy and rights—does not square with the Confucian tradition that emphasizes family as a coherent unit. The essay also points out that there is a huge difference in patients’ perceptions of “individual rights,” due to their different levels of education. The author argues that informed consent could be better practiced if both doctors and patients were “well informed” and understood the moral and legal implications of informed consent.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 97 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document