title: Does the emergency exception from informed consent process protect research subjects?
abstract: Although subject protection is the cornerstone of medical ethics, when considered in the context of research using emergency exception from informed consent, its success is debatable. The participants of a breakout session at the 2005 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussed the issues surrounding subject protection and advanced the following recommendations. 1) There are no outcome measures that define "protection"; therefore, it is not currently known whether or not subjects are protected under the current rules. 2) Care must be taken to protect not only the individual from harm during research but also to protect society from unregulated research in other countries and an inability to appropriately advance medical knowledge. 3) Some surrogate markers/methods of protection whose efficacies are debatable include data safety monitoring board activity, the community consultation and public notification (CC/PN) process, and institutional review board approval. 4) Minimal-risk studies should be held to different standards of protection than those that involve more significant risk to the subject. 5) A handful of studies have been published regarding community consultation and notification, and the majority are case studies. Those that are specifically designed to discover the most successful methods are hindered by a lack of formal outcomes measures and tend to have negative results. 6) Follow-up data from the CC/PN process should be disclosed to the Food and Drug Administration and incorporated into study designs. 7) Focus groups and/or random-digit dialing have been suggested as promising methods for fulfilling the CC/PN requirements. 8) Studies need to be funded and performed that formally investigate the best means of CC/PN. 9) More funding for this research should be a priority in the emergency medicine and critical care communities. More data regarding terminated studies should be made available to the research community. 10) Quantifiable markers of success for CC/PN must be validated so that research may determine the most successful methods. 11) Data regarding subjects' and family members' experiences with exception from informed consent studies need to be obtained.
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA. deiorion@ohsu.edu
authors.forename: Nicole M
authors.initials: NM
authors.lastname: Delorio
authors.forename: Katie B
authors.initials: KB
authors.lastname: McClure
mesh_terms: D003159:Community-Institutional Relations; D004635:Emergency Medicine / Q000941:ethics* / Q000592:standards; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000941:ethics* / Q000592:standards; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics* / Q000592:standards*; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods; D018579:Patient Selection / Q000941:ethics*; D014481:United States