To study the approach of health care workers (HCW) to informed consent for therapy and research in the field of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT)
Design
Administration of questionnaire.
Setting
Two International Courses on Critical Care Nephrology (CCN) held in Vicenza and Melbourne.
Participants
Eight hundred and twenty one course participants.
Results
We obtained 349 analysable questionnaires (42.5% of participants). Only 22.5% of responders always obtain informed consent for CRRT; 70.3% just inform patients/relatives without seeking consent, 7.1% never obtain informed consent. In ICU patients, informed consent is considered “good, correct and feasible” for therapy and for research by only 13% and 27% of responders, respectively. Consent for clinical research obtained from the next of kin or legal guardian is considered “good, correct and feasible” by 56.3% of respondents, while 39.1% believe that next of kin or legal guardians can not really make informed decisions. Finally, nearly half of responders think that present rules hamper research in ICU. For many questions, significant variability of responses was found according to profession, speciality and origin of responders.
Conclusions
In the field of CRRT, stated practice, beliefs and currently accepted ethical standards vary greatly according to profession, speciality and origin. A significant disagreement between what is widely promoted to be the “correct” approach and what is currently done is evident.
Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities 1.5.2001; L121: 34–44.
4.
HosteE.A., KellumJ.A.Acute renal failure in the critically ill: Impact on morbidity and mortality. In: Ronco C, Bellomo R, Brendolan A, eds. Sepsis, kidney and multiple organ dysfunction. Contrib Nephrol2004; 144: 1–11.
5.
SprungC.L., EidelmanL.A.Worldwide similarities and differences in the forgoing of life-sustaining treatments. Intensive Care Med1996; 22: 1003–5.
6.
CookD.J., GuyattG.H., JaeschkeR., ReeveJ., SpanierA., KingD., MolloyW., WillanA., StreinerD.L., for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Determinants in Canadian health care workers of the decision to withdraw life support from the critically ill. JAMA1995; 273: 703–8.
7.
PrendergastT.J., ClaessensM.T., LuceJ.M.A national survey of end-of-life care for critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1998; 158: 1163–7.
8.
FerrandE., RobertR., IngrandP., LemaireF., for the French LATAREA group. Withholding and withdrawal of life support in intensive care units in France: A prospective survey. Lancet2001; 357: 9–14.
9.
VincentJ.L.Forgoing life support in western European intensive care units: The result of an ethical questionnaire. Crit Care Med1999; 27: 1626–33.
10.
SjokvistP., NilstumT., SvantessonM., BerggrenL.Withdrawal of life support - who should decide? Differences in attitudes among the general public, nurses and physicians. Intensive Care Med1999; 25: 949–54.
11.
FranklinC., RosenbloomB.Proposing a new standard to establish medical competence for the purpose of critical care intervention. Crit Care Med2000; 28: 3035–8.
12.
PrendergastT.J., LuceJ.M.Increasing incidence of withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1997; 155: 10–20.
13.
PochardF., AzoulayE., ChevretS., LemaireF., HubertP., CanuiP., GrassinM., ZittounR., le GallJ.R., DhainautJ.F., SchlemmerB., for the French Famirea Group. Symptoms of anxiety and depressions in family members of intensive care units patients: Ethical hypothesis regarding decision-making capacity. Crit Care Med2001; 29: 1893–7.
14.
AzoulayE., PochardF., Garrouste-OrgeasM., MoreauD., MontesinoL., AdrieC., de LassenceA., CohenY., TimsitJ.F., for the Otcomerea Study Group. Decisions to forgo life–sustaining therapy in ICU patients independently predict hospital death. Intensive Care Med2003; 29: 1895–901.
15.
SchneidermanL.J., GilmerT., TeeyzelH.D.Impact of ethics consultation in the intensive care setting: A randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med2000; 28: 3920–4.
16.
OrrR.D., MortonK.R., deLeonD.M., FalsJ.C.Evaluation of an ethics consultation service: Patient and family perspective. Am J Med1996; 101: 135–41.
17.
YenB.M., SchneidermanL.J.Impact of pediatric ethics consultations on patients, families, social workers, and physicians. J Perinatol1999; 19: 373–8.
18.
AnnaneD., OutinH., FischC., BelissantE.The effect of waiving consent on enrollment in a sepsis trial. Intensive Care Med2004; 30: 321–4.
19.
CliftonG.L., KnudsonP., McDonaldR.Waiver of consent in studies of acute brain injury. J Neurotrauma2002; 19: 1121–6.
20.
CoppolinoM., AckersonL.Do surrogate decision makers provide accurate consent for intensive acre research?Chest2001; 119: 603–12.
21.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (National Commission).Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.Washington DC: US Government Printing Office; 1979.
22.
DaughertyC., RatainM.J., GrochowskiE., StockingC., KodishE., MickR., SieglerM.Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol1995; 13: 1062–72.
23.
LuceJ.M.Is the concept of informed consent applicable to clinical research involving critically ill patients?Crit Care Med2003; 31(3 suppl): S153–60.
24.
LuceJ.M.Research ethics and consent in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Crit Care2003; 9: 540–4.
25.
LevinskyN.G.Nonfinancial conflicts of interest in research. N Engl J Med2002; 347: 759–61.
26.
BodenheimerT.Uneasy alliance - clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med2000; 342: 1539–44.
27.
GarattiniS., BerteleV., Li BassiL.How can research ethics committees protect patients better?BMJ2003; 326: 1199–201.
28.
DjulbegovicB., ClarkeM.Scientific and ethical issues in equivalence trials. JAMA2001; 285: 1206–8.
29.
FreemantleN., CalvertM., WoodJ., EastaughJ., GriffinC.Composite outcomes in randomized trials: Greater precision but with greater uncertainty?JAMA2003; 289: 2554–9.
30.
ChanK.B., Man-Son-HingM., MolnarF.J., LaupacisA.How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ2001; 165: 1197–202.
31.
MontoriV.M., SmiejaM., GuyattG.H.Publication bias: A brief review for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc2000; 75: 1284–8.
32.
LiberatiA., MagriniN.Information from drug companies and opinion leaders. BMJ2003; 326: 1156–7.
33.
MelanderH., Ahlqvist-RastadJ., MeijerG., BeermannB.Evidence b(i)ased medicine-selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: Review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ2003; 326: 1171–3.
34.
LexchinJ., BeroL.A., DjulbegovicB., ClarkO.Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ2003; 326: 1167–70.
35.
BrochardL.Redundant publications, or piling up the medals. Getting published is not the Olympic games. Intensive Care Med2004; 30: 1857–8.
36.
DreyfussD.To consent or not to consent, that is (not) the (sole) question. “And there is nothing new under the sun”. Kohelet (also known as Ecclesiastes),1: 9. Bible. Intensive Care Med2004; 30: 180–2.
37.
TruogR.D.Will ethical requirement bring critical care research to a halt?Intensive Care Med2005; 31: 338–44.
38.
SteinbrookR.Public registration of clinical trials. N Engl J Med2004; 351: 315–7.
39.
De AngelisC., DrazenJ.M., FrizelleF.A., HaugC., HoeyJ., HortonR., KotzinS., LaineC., MarusicA., OverbekeA.J., SchroederT.V., SoxH.C., Van Der WeydenM.B.; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical Trial Registration: A statement from the International Committee of medical journal editors. N Engl J Med2004; 351: 1250–1.
