Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2020 Oct 1;20(1):76.
doi: 10.1186/s12873-020-00371-6.

Patient and surrogate attitudes via an interviewer-administered survey on exception from informed consent enrollment in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial

Insiyah Campwala  1 , Francis X Guyette  2 , Joshua B Brown  1 , Peter W Adams  1 , Barbara J Early  1 , Mark H Yazer  1 , Matthew D Neal  1 , Brian S Zuckerbraun  1 , Jason L Sperry  3
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Patient and surrogate attitudes via an interviewer-administered survey on exception from informed consent enrollment in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial

Insiyah Campwala et al. BMC Emerg Med. .

Abstract

Objectives: With increased focus on early resuscitation methods following injury to improve patient outcomes, studies are employing exception from informed consent (EFIC) enrollment. Few studies have assessed patients' opinions following participation in an EFIC study, and none have been conducted within the realm of traumatic hemorrhage. We surveyed those patients and surrogates previously enrolled in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial to clarify their opinions related to consent and emergency research.

Methods: Telephone calls were made between January-June 2019 to all patients who were enrolled under EFIC in the PAMPer study at the Pittsburgh site (169 of the 501 total patients enrolled, May 2014-Oct 2017) and their surrogates. Questions gauging approval of EFIC enrollment were asked before discussion of PAMPer trial outcomes, after disclosure of positive outcomes, and after a hypothetical negative trial outcome was proposed.

Results: Of the total 647 telephone calls made, ninety-three interviews, reflecting 70 of 169 patient enrollments, were conducted. This included 13 in which only the patient was interviewed, 23 in which the patient and a surrogate were interviewed, and 34 in which only a surrogate was interviewed. Nearly half (48.4%) of respondents did not recall their personal or family member enrollment in the study. No patients or surrogates recalled hearing about the study through community consultation or being aware of opt out procedures. Patients and surrogates were glad they were enrolled (90.3%), agreed with EFIC use for their personal enrollment (88.17%), and agreed with the general use of EFIC for the PAMPer study (81.7%). Disclosure of the true positive PAMPer study outcome resulted in a significant increase in opinions regarding personal enrollment, EFIC for personal enrollment, and EFIC for general enrollment (all p < 0.001). Disclosure of a hypothetical neutral or negative study outcome resulted in significant decreases in opinions regarding EFIC for personal enrollment (p = 0.003) and EFIC for general enrollment (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Clinical trial participants with traumatic hemorrhagic shock enrolled with EFIC, and surrogates of such participants, are generally accepting of EFIC. The results of the trial in which EFIC was utilized significantly affected patient and surrogate agreement with personal and general EFIC enrollment.

Keywords: Emergency research; Exception from informed consent; Hemorrhagic shock; Patient/SDM attitudes; Telephone survey.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study Population
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Effectiveness of Community Consultation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Attitudes about Exception from Informed Consent
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Attitudes Toward Doctors and Emergency Research
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Shackelford SA, Del Junco DJ, Powell-Dunford N, Mazuchowski EL, Howard JT, Kotwal RS, et al. Association of Prehospital Blood Product Transfusion during Medical Evacuation of combat casualties in Afghanistan with acute and 30-day survival. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1581–1591. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sperry JL, Guyette FX, Brown JB, et al. Prehospital plasma during air medical transport in trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(4):315–326. - PubMed
    1. Meyer DE, Vincent LE, Fox EE, et al. Every minute counts: time to delivery of initial massive transfusion cooler and its impact on mortality. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;83(1):19–24. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fox EE, Holcomb JB, Wade CE, Bulger EM, Tilley BC, PROPPR Study Group Earlier endpoints are required for hemorrhagic shock trials among severely injured patients. Shock. 2017;47(5):567–573. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beshansky JR, Sheehan PR, Klima KJ, Hadar N, Vickery EM, Selker HP. A community consultation survey to evaluate support for and success of the IMMEDIATE trial. Clin Trials. 2014;11(2):178–186. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types