Ethics Committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols

Nicole Deiorio, Katie B. McClure, Maria Nelson, Kenneth (John) McConnell, Terri Schmidt

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

SINCE 1996, u.s. FEDERAL REGULATIONS allow research without informed consent to study emergency conditions, if there is currently no satisfactory treatment for the condition, no time to obtain advance consent from the patient or representative, and if there is community involvement through a public disclosure and community consultation process. REB experiences since then are unknown. We surveyed REB chairpersons at the 126 United States medical schools to quantify reviewed protocols and identify attitudes about the rule, to better understand the rule's impact on REBs. Sixty-nine surveys were returned (55%). Fifty-two respondents reviewing human research had heard of the Rule. Forty-eight percent (25/52) had reviewed such a study; 40% of those had rejected at least one. Seventy-eight percent believe the rule protects human subjects, and 88% feel prepared to implement them. REB views differed from public opinion on how best to enact notification and consultation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationEmergency Research Ethics
PublisherTaylor and Francis
Pages261-268
Number of pages8
Volume4
ISBN (Electronic)9781315256634
ISBN (Print)9781409446811
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2 2017

Fingerprint

moral philosophy
community
public opinion
experience
school
time

Keywords

  • Guidelines
  • Informed consent
  • Research ethics
  • Research ethics committees
  • Resuscitation
  • United States Food and Drug Administration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Deiorio, N., McClure, K. B., Nelson, M., McConnell, K. J., & Schmidt, T. (2017). Ethics Committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols. In Emergency Research Ethics (Vol. 4, pp. 261-268). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315256634

Ethics Committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols. / Deiorio, Nicole; McClure, Katie B.; Nelson, Maria; McConnell, Kenneth (John); Schmidt, Terri.

Emergency Research Ethics. Vol. 4 Taylor and Francis, 2017. p. 261-268.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Deiorio, N, McClure, KB, Nelson, M, McConnell, KJ & Schmidt, T 2017, Ethics Committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols. in Emergency Research Ethics. vol. 4, Taylor and Francis, pp. 261-268. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315256634
Deiorio N, McClure KB, Nelson M, McConnell KJ, Schmidt T. Ethics Committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols. In Emergency Research Ethics. Vol. 4. Taylor and Francis. 2017. p. 261-268 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315256634
Deiorio, Nicole ; McClure, Katie B. ; Nelson, Maria ; McConnell, Kenneth (John) ; Schmidt, Terri. / Ethics Committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols. Emergency Research Ethics. Vol. 4 Taylor and Francis, 2017. pp. 261-268
@inbook{50901884a7ab4d3ca27a7b3ab9d25b42,
title = "Ethics Committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols",
abstract = "SINCE 1996, u.s. FEDERAL REGULATIONS allow research without informed consent to study emergency conditions, if there is currently no satisfactory treatment for the condition, no time to obtain advance consent from the patient or representative, and if there is community involvement through a public disclosure and community consultation process. REB experiences since then are unknown. We surveyed REB chairpersons at the 126 United States medical schools to quantify reviewed protocols and identify attitudes about the rule, to better understand the rule's impact on REBs. Sixty-nine surveys were returned (55{\%}). Fifty-two respondents reviewing human research had heard of the Rule. Forty-eight percent (25/52) had reviewed such a study; 40{\%} of those had rejected at least one. Seventy-eight percent believe the rule protects human subjects, and 88{\%} feel prepared to implement them. REB views differed from public opinion on how best to enact notification and consultation.",
keywords = "Guidelines, Informed consent, Research ethics, Research ethics committees, Resuscitation, United States Food and Drug Administration",
author = "Nicole Deiorio and McClure, {Katie B.} and Maria Nelson and McConnell, {Kenneth (John)} and Terri Schmidt",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "2",
doi = "10.4324/9781315256634",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781409446811",
volume = "4",
pages = "261--268",
booktitle = "Emergency Research Ethics",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Ethics Committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols

AU - Deiorio, Nicole

AU - McClure, Katie B.

AU - Nelson, Maria

AU - McConnell, Kenneth (John)

AU - Schmidt, Terri

PY - 2017/3/2

Y1 - 2017/3/2

N2 - SINCE 1996, u.s. FEDERAL REGULATIONS allow research without informed consent to study emergency conditions, if there is currently no satisfactory treatment for the condition, no time to obtain advance consent from the patient or representative, and if there is community involvement through a public disclosure and community consultation process. REB experiences since then are unknown. We surveyed REB chairpersons at the 126 United States medical schools to quantify reviewed protocols and identify attitudes about the rule, to better understand the rule's impact on REBs. Sixty-nine surveys were returned (55%). Fifty-two respondents reviewing human research had heard of the Rule. Forty-eight percent (25/52) had reviewed such a study; 40% of those had rejected at least one. Seventy-eight percent believe the rule protects human subjects, and 88% feel prepared to implement them. REB views differed from public opinion on how best to enact notification and consultation.

AB - SINCE 1996, u.s. FEDERAL REGULATIONS allow research without informed consent to study emergency conditions, if there is currently no satisfactory treatment for the condition, no time to obtain advance consent from the patient or representative, and if there is community involvement through a public disclosure and community consultation process. REB experiences since then are unknown. We surveyed REB chairpersons at the 126 United States medical schools to quantify reviewed protocols and identify attitudes about the rule, to better understand the rule's impact on REBs. Sixty-nine surveys were returned (55%). Fifty-two respondents reviewing human research had heard of the Rule. Forty-eight percent (25/52) had reviewed such a study; 40% of those had rejected at least one. Seventy-eight percent believe the rule protects human subjects, and 88% feel prepared to implement them. REB views differed from public opinion on how best to enact notification and consultation.

KW - Guidelines

KW - Informed consent

KW - Research ethics

KW - Research ethics committees

KW - Resuscitation

KW - United States Food and Drug Administration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061595883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061595883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4324/9781315256634

DO - 10.4324/9781315256634

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85061595883

SN - 9781409446811

VL - 4

SP - 261

EP - 268

BT - Emergency Research Ethics

PB - Taylor and Francis

ER -