Enhancing the Informed Consent Process Using Shared Decision Making and Consent Refusal Data from the CLEAR III Trial

Enhancing the Informed Consent Process Using Shared Decision Making and Consent Refusal Data from the CLEAR III Trial
Amanda L. Porter, James Ebot, Karen Lane, Lesia H. Mooney, Amy M. Lannen, Eugene M. Richie, Rachel Dlugash, Steve Mayo, Thomas G. Brott, Wendy Ziai, William D. Freeman, Daniel F. Hanley
Neurocritical Care, 30 September 2019; pp 1–8
Abstract
Background
The process of informed consent in National Institutes of Health randomized, placebo-controlled trials is poorly studied. There are several issues regarding informed consent in emergency neurologic trials, including a shared decision-making process with the patient or a legally authorized representative about overall risks, benefits, and alternative treatments.
Methods
To evaluate the informed consent process, we collected best and worst informed consent practice information from a National Institutes of Health trial and used this in medical simulation videos to educate investigators at multiple sites to improve the consent process. Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage Phase III (CLEAR III) (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00784134) studied the effect of intraventricular alteplase (n = 251) versus saline (placebo) injections (n = 249) for intraventricular hemorrhage reduction. Reasons for ineligibility (including refusing to consent) for all screen failures were analyzed. The broadcasted presentation outlined best practices for doctor–patient interactions during the consenting process, as well as anecdotal, study-specific reasons for consent refusal. Best and worst consent elements were then incorporated into a simulation video to enhance the informed consent process. This video was disseminated to trial sites as a webinar around the midpoint of the trial to improve the consent process. Pre- and post-intervention consent refusals were compared.
Results
During the trial, 10,538 patients were screened for eligibility, of which only three were excluded due to trial timing. Pre-intervention, 77 of 5686 (1.40%) screen eligible patients or their proxies refused consent. Post-intervention, 55 of 4849 (1.10%) refused consent, which was not significantly different from pre-intervention (P = 0.312). The incidence of screen failures was significantly lower post-intervention (P = 0.006), possibly due to several factors for patient exclusion.
Conclusion
The informed consent process for prospective randomized trials may be enhanced by studying and refining best practices based on trial-specific plans and patient concerns particular to a study.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s