Continuous quality improvement: reducing informed consent form signing errors
Research
Tsui-Wen Hsu, Chi-Hung Huang, Li-Ju Chuang, Hui-Chen Lee, Chih-Shung Wong
BMC Medical Ethics, 4 August 2023; 24(59)
Open Access
Abstract
Background
Adherence to ethical guidelines and regulations and protecting and respecting the dignity and autonomy of participants by obtaining a valid informed consent form (ICF) prior to participation in research are crucial; The subjects did not add signatures next to the corrections made to signatures or dates on the ICF, Multiple signatures in other fields, ICF missing/missing signature, Incorrect ICF version Signed after modification, Correction tape used to correct signature, Impersonated signature, Non-research-member signature, however, ICFs are often not properly completed, which must be addressed. This study analyzed ICF signing errors and implemented measures to reduce or prevent these errors.
Methods
We used the plan–do–check–act (PDCA) cycle to help improve the correctness and validity of ICF signing.
Results
Interim and final reports from January 2016 to February 2020 including 363 ICFs were studied. The total proportion of correct ICF signatures (200, 83.3%) following the PDCA intervention was significantly higher than that before the intervention (P < 0.05). Analysis of the types of signing error demonstrated that signature errors were significantly reduced after the intervention, particularly for subjects did not add signatures next to the corrections made to signatures or dates on the ICF (16, 6.7%) and impersonated signature (0; P < 0.05).
Conclusions
The proportions of other error types—multiple signatures in other fields, missing or unsigned ICF, incorrect signature order, incorrect ICF version, use of correction tape to correct signature, and non-medical profession members signing the ICF—did not differ significantly.

Physician-Investigator, Research Coordinator, and Patient Perspectives on Dual-Role Consent in Oncology A Qualitative Study
Stephanie R. Morain, Dorit Barlevy, Steven Joffe, Emily A. Largent
JAMA Network Open, 25 July 2023; 6(7)
Abstract
Importance
Classic statements of research ethics generally advise against dual-role consent in which physician-investigators seek consent for research participation from patients with whom they have preexisting treatment relationships. Yet dual-role consent is common in clinical oncology research, as studies are often conducted in close relationship with clinical care.
Objective
To explore key stakeholders’ perspectives on dual-role consent in clinical oncology trials.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This qualitative study with 43 participants was conducted at a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center from 2018 to 2022. Semistructured qualitative interviews of physician-investigators, research coordinators, and patients were performed. Respondents were recruited from 3 populations: (1) physician-investigators engaged in clinical oncology research; (2) research coordinators engaged in clinical oncology research; and (3) patients, with and without prior clinical trial experience, who had received a new cancer diagnosis at least 2 months prior to enrollment in this study.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Interviews were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. A thematic analysis approach was used to develop a codebook that included both theory-driven, a priori codes and emergent, inductive codes. Two authors double-coded all transcripts and met regularly to compare coding, discuss discrepancies, refine the codebook, and draft memos describing relevant themes and their frequency.
Results
Among the 43 respondents, 28 (65.1%) were female; 9 (20.9%) were African American, 8 (18.6%) were Asian, 6 (14.0%) were Hispanic, and 21 (48.8%) were White; 15 were physician-investigators (6 [40.0%] with 6-10 years of experience, 4 [26.7%] with at least 20 years of experience), 13 were research coordinators (5 [38.5%] with 0-5 years of experience, 5 [38.5%] with 6-10 years of experience), and 15 were patients (9 [60.0%] aged 46-64 years). Four main themes were found: interviewees (1) perceived greater potential for role synergy than for role conflict; (2) reported dual-role consent as having mixed effects on the consent process, increasing prospective participants’ understanding and likelihood of agreement while also challenging voluntariness; (3) preferred a team-based approach to the consent process in which physician-investigators and research coordinators share responsibility for communicating with prospective participants and safeguarding voluntariness; and (4) offered strategies for managing tensions in dual-role consent.
Conclusions and Relevance
This qualitative study found that concerns about dual-role consent in clinical oncology, while valid, may be outweighed by corresponding advantages, particularly if appropriate mitigation strategies are in place. These findings support a team-based approach to informed consent, in which physician-investigators and research coordinators promote both the understanding and voluntariness of prospective participants.