Conducting research using the emergency exception from informed consent: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial experience

Vincent N. Mosesso, Lawrence H. Brown, H. Leon Greene, Terri Schmidt, Tom P. Aufderheide, Michael R. Sayre, Shannon W. Stephens, Andrew Travers, Richard A. Craven, Myron L. Weisfeldt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

75 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial, a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing two prehospital resuscitation strategies, was conducted under the regulations for exception from informed consent (21CFR50.24) in 24 communities in North America. These regulations place additional requirements for human subject protection on investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including conducting community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD). Objective: To describe the IRB approval process at study sites and the number and types of community consultation and public disclosure activities conducted. Methods: The 24 study sites in the United States and Canada submitted IRB applications, CC and PD plans, and a structured report on IRB process and investigator perceptions to the Clinical Trial Center at the University of Washington. Results: The primary IRBs for all 24 trial sites and a total of 101 IRBs approved the study. The median interval from submission to approval was 108 days (IQR 43-196), and the mean number of revisions was two (range 0-7). Investigators conducted nearly 12,000 activities to achieve CC and PD; activities varied greatly from site to site in both type and quantity. Conclusion: The length of time to obtain IRB approval and the extent of community consultation and public disclosure varied greatly among trial sites in meeting the current regulations for conducting emergency research with exception from informed consent. This suggests that more specific guidance may be useful and that determination of effective strategies for community consultation and public disclosure is needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)29-36
Number of pages8
JournalResuscitation
Volume61
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2004

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
Informed Consent
Disclosure
Emergencies
Referral and Consultation
Research
Research Personnel
North America
Resuscitation
Canada
Randomized Controlled Trials
Clinical Trials

Keywords

  • Automated external defibrillator (AED)
  • Cardiac arrest
  • Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
  • Desfibrilhação automática externa (AED)
  • Ethics
  • Human experimentation: clinical trials
  • Informed consent
  • Paragem cardíaca

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Mosesso, V. N., Brown, L. H., Greene, H. L., Schmidt, T., Aufderheide, T. P., Sayre, M. R., ... Weisfeldt, M. L. (2004). Conducting research using the emergency exception from informed consent: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial experience. Resuscitation, 61(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2003.11.016

Conducting research using the emergency exception from informed consent : The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial experience. / Mosesso, Vincent N.; Brown, Lawrence H.; Greene, H. Leon; Schmidt, Terri; Aufderheide, Tom P.; Sayre, Michael R.; Stephens, Shannon W.; Travers, Andrew; Craven, Richard A.; Weisfeldt, Myron L.

In: Resuscitation, Vol. 61, No. 1, 04.2004, p. 29-36.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mosesso, VN, Brown, LH, Greene, HL, Schmidt, T, Aufderheide, TP, Sayre, MR, Stephens, SW, Travers, A, Craven, RA & Weisfeldt, ML 2004, 'Conducting research using the emergency exception from informed consent: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial experience', Resuscitation, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2003.11.016
Mosesso, Vincent N. ; Brown, Lawrence H. ; Greene, H. Leon ; Schmidt, Terri ; Aufderheide, Tom P. ; Sayre, Michael R. ; Stephens, Shannon W. ; Travers, Andrew ; Craven, Richard A. ; Weisfeldt, Myron L. / Conducting research using the emergency exception from informed consent : The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial experience. In: Resuscitation. 2004 ; Vol. 61, No. 1. pp. 29-36.
@article{7be54fabdcff46ae84601c891495fb59,
title = "Conducting research using the emergency exception from informed consent: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial experience",
abstract = "Background: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial, a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing two prehospital resuscitation strategies, was conducted under the regulations for exception from informed consent (21CFR50.24) in 24 communities in North America. These regulations place additional requirements for human subject protection on investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including conducting community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD). Objective: To describe the IRB approval process at study sites and the number and types of community consultation and public disclosure activities conducted. Methods: The 24 study sites in the United States and Canada submitted IRB applications, CC and PD plans, and a structured report on IRB process and investigator perceptions to the Clinical Trial Center at the University of Washington. Results: The primary IRBs for all 24 trial sites and a total of 101 IRBs approved the study. The median interval from submission to approval was 108 days (IQR 43-196), and the mean number of revisions was two (range 0-7). Investigators conducted nearly 12,000 activities to achieve CC and PD; activities varied greatly from site to site in both type and quantity. Conclusion: The length of time to obtain IRB approval and the extent of community consultation and public disclosure varied greatly among trial sites in meeting the current regulations for conducting emergency research with exception from informed consent. This suggests that more specific guidance may be useful and that determination of effective strategies for community consultation and public disclosure is needed.",
keywords = "Automated external defibrillator (AED), Cardiac arrest, Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), Desfibrilha{\cc}{\~a}o autom{\'a}tica externa (AED), Ethics, Human experimentation: clinical trials, Informed consent, Paragem card{\'i}aca",
author = "Mosesso, {Vincent N.} and Brown, {Lawrence H.} and Greene, {H. Leon} and Terri Schmidt and Aufderheide, {Tom P.} and Sayre, {Michael R.} and Stephens, {Shannon W.} and Andrew Travers and Craven, {Richard A.} and Weisfeldt, {Myron L.}",
year = "2004",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.resuscitation.2003.11.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "61",
pages = "29--36",
journal = "Resuscitation",
issn = "0300-9572",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conducting research using the emergency exception from informed consent

T2 - The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial experience

AU - Mosesso, Vincent N.

AU - Brown, Lawrence H.

AU - Greene, H. Leon

AU - Schmidt, Terri

AU - Aufderheide, Tom P.

AU - Sayre, Michael R.

AU - Stephens, Shannon W.

AU - Travers, Andrew

AU - Craven, Richard A.

AU - Weisfeldt, Myron L.

PY - 2004/4

Y1 - 2004/4

N2 - Background: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial, a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing two prehospital resuscitation strategies, was conducted under the regulations for exception from informed consent (21CFR50.24) in 24 communities in North America. These regulations place additional requirements for human subject protection on investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including conducting community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD). Objective: To describe the IRB approval process at study sites and the number and types of community consultation and public disclosure activities conducted. Methods: The 24 study sites in the United States and Canada submitted IRB applications, CC and PD plans, and a structured report on IRB process and investigator perceptions to the Clinical Trial Center at the University of Washington. Results: The primary IRBs for all 24 trial sites and a total of 101 IRBs approved the study. The median interval from submission to approval was 108 days (IQR 43-196), and the mean number of revisions was two (range 0-7). Investigators conducted nearly 12,000 activities to achieve CC and PD; activities varied greatly from site to site in both type and quantity. Conclusion: The length of time to obtain IRB approval and the extent of community consultation and public disclosure varied greatly among trial sites in meeting the current regulations for conducting emergency research with exception from informed consent. This suggests that more specific guidance may be useful and that determination of effective strategies for community consultation and public disclosure is needed.

AB - Background: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial, a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing two prehospital resuscitation strategies, was conducted under the regulations for exception from informed consent (21CFR50.24) in 24 communities in North America. These regulations place additional requirements for human subject protection on investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including conducting community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD). Objective: To describe the IRB approval process at study sites and the number and types of community consultation and public disclosure activities conducted. Methods: The 24 study sites in the United States and Canada submitted IRB applications, CC and PD plans, and a structured report on IRB process and investigator perceptions to the Clinical Trial Center at the University of Washington. Results: The primary IRBs for all 24 trial sites and a total of 101 IRBs approved the study. The median interval from submission to approval was 108 days (IQR 43-196), and the mean number of revisions was two (range 0-7). Investigators conducted nearly 12,000 activities to achieve CC and PD; activities varied greatly from site to site in both type and quantity. Conclusion: The length of time to obtain IRB approval and the extent of community consultation and public disclosure varied greatly among trial sites in meeting the current regulations for conducting emergency research with exception from informed consent. This suggests that more specific guidance may be useful and that determination of effective strategies for community consultation and public disclosure is needed.

KW - Automated external defibrillator (AED)

KW - Cardiac arrest

KW - Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)

KW - Desfibrilhação automática externa (AED)

KW - Ethics

KW - Human experimentation: clinical trials

KW - Informed consent

KW - Paragem cardíaca

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=11144355628&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=11144355628&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2003.11.016

DO - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2003.11.016

M3 - Article

C2 - 15081178

AN - SCOPUS:11144355628

VL - 61

SP - 29

EP - 36

JO - Resuscitation

JF - Resuscitation

SN - 0300-9572

IS - 1

ER -