• Amanda L Porter, James Ebot, Karen Lane, Lesia H Mooney, Amy M Lannen, Eugene M Richie, Rachel Dlugash, Steve Mayo, Thomas G Brott, Wendy Ziai, William D Freeman, and Daniel F Hanley.
• Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
• Neurocrit Care. 2020 Feb 1; 32 (1): 340347340-347.

BackgroundThe process of informed consent in National Institutes of Health randomized, placebo-controlled trials is poorly studied. There are several issues regarding informed consent in emergency neurologic trials, including a shared decision-making process with the patient or a legally authorized representative about overall risks, benefits, and alternative treatments.MethodsTo evaluate the informed consent process, we collected best and worst informed consent practice information from a National Institutes of Health trial and used this in medical simulation videos to educate investigators at multiple sites to improve the consent process. Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage Phase III (CLEAR III) (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00784134) studied the effect of intraventricular alteplase (n = 251) versus saline (placebo) injections (n = 249) for intraventricular hemorrhage reduction. Reasons for ineligibility (including refusing to consent) for all screen failures were analyzed. The broadcasted presentation outlined best practices for doctor-patient interactions during the consenting process, as well as anecdotal, study-specific reasons for consent refusal. Best and worst consent elements were then incorporated into a simulation video to enhance the informed consent process. This video was disseminated to trial sites as a webinar around the midpoint of the trial to improve the consent process. Pre- and post-intervention consent refusals were compared.ResultsDuring the trial, 10,538 patients were screened for eligibility, of which only three were excluded due to trial timing. Pre-intervention, 77 of 5686 (1.40%) screen eligible patients or their proxies refused consent. Post-intervention, 55 of 4849 (1.10%) refused consent, which was not significantly different from pre-intervention (P = 0.312). The incidence of screen failures was significantly lower post-intervention (P = 0.006), possibly due to several factors for patient exclusion.ConclusionThe informed consent process for prospective randomized trials may be enhanced by studying and refining best practices based on trial-specific plans and patient concerns particular to a study.

23 keywords...

hide…