Researchers' understanding of the federal guidelines for waiver of and exception from informed consent

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The survival of patients who present to the emergency department with severe injury or illness is dismal. Resuscitation researchers are interested in advancing the science of resuscitation, and clinical studies must be conducted to determine the best treatment protocols. These studies must reflect good science and must balance individual patient autonomy and safety with scientific progress that benefits society as a whole. Researchers find the present federal guidelines on waiver of and exception from informed consent to be time consuming and expensive. They see variability in the requirements as interpreted by institutional review boards. There is confusion regarding the requirements for public notification and response to community consultation. They believe that the majority of the public, as well as health care professionals, want resuscitation research to progress, but a minority of people and governmental regulators are uncomfortable with waiver of and exception from informed consent for research studies. There is concern and some evidence that the federal guidelines have impeded the advancement of resuscitation science. Several strategies have been suggested to improve the situation. These include 1) better education of resuscitation researchers regarding the federal guidelines, 2) a toolbox for resuscitation researchers clarifying the guidelines, 3) advocacy for the advancement of resuscitation science as a public good, and 4) a national research advisory board that provides unbiased reviews of clinical studies and guidelines for local institutional review boards regarding risks, benefits, and communication strategies for waiver of and exception from consent proposals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1045-1049
Number of pages5
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume12
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2005

Fingerprint

Informed Consent
Resuscitation
Research Personnel
Guidelines
Research Ethics Committees
Research
Patient Safety
Clinical Protocols
Hospital Emergency Service
Referral and Consultation
Communication
Delivery of Health Care
Education
Survival
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • Federal guidelines
  • Informed consent
  • Resuscitation research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Researchers' understanding of the federal guidelines for waiver of and exception from informed consent. / Sanders, Arthur B; Hiller, Katherine M; Duldner, John.

In: Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 12, No. 11, 11.2005, p. 1045-1049.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fcdee6ac0b4341bebc83725bb0aedfe5,
title = "Researchers' understanding of the federal guidelines for waiver of and exception from informed consent",
abstract = "The survival of patients who present to the emergency department with severe injury or illness is dismal. Resuscitation researchers are interested in advancing the science of resuscitation, and clinical studies must be conducted to determine the best treatment protocols. These studies must reflect good science and must balance individual patient autonomy and safety with scientific progress that benefits society as a whole. Researchers find the present federal guidelines on waiver of and exception from informed consent to be time consuming and expensive. They see variability in the requirements as interpreted by institutional review boards. There is confusion regarding the requirements for public notification and response to community consultation. They believe that the majority of the public, as well as health care professionals, want resuscitation research to progress, but a minority of people and governmental regulators are uncomfortable with waiver of and exception from informed consent for research studies. There is concern and some evidence that the federal guidelines have impeded the advancement of resuscitation science. Several strategies have been suggested to improve the situation. These include 1) better education of resuscitation researchers regarding the federal guidelines, 2) a toolbox for resuscitation researchers clarifying the guidelines, 3) advocacy for the advancement of resuscitation science as a public good, and 4) a national research advisory board that provides unbiased reviews of clinical studies and guidelines for local institutional review boards regarding risks, benefits, and communication strategies for waiver of and exception from consent proposals.",
keywords = "Federal guidelines, Informed consent, Resuscitation research",
author = "Sanders, {Arthur B} and Hiller, {Katherine M} and John Duldner",
year = "2005",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1197/j.aem.2005.06.013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "1045--1049",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Researchers' understanding of the federal guidelines for waiver of and exception from informed consent

AU - Sanders, Arthur B

AU - Hiller, Katherine M

AU - Duldner, John

PY - 2005/11

Y1 - 2005/11

N2 - The survival of patients who present to the emergency department with severe injury or illness is dismal. Resuscitation researchers are interested in advancing the science of resuscitation, and clinical studies must be conducted to determine the best treatment protocols. These studies must reflect good science and must balance individual patient autonomy and safety with scientific progress that benefits society as a whole. Researchers find the present federal guidelines on waiver of and exception from informed consent to be time consuming and expensive. They see variability in the requirements as interpreted by institutional review boards. There is confusion regarding the requirements for public notification and response to community consultation. They believe that the majority of the public, as well as health care professionals, want resuscitation research to progress, but a minority of people and governmental regulators are uncomfortable with waiver of and exception from informed consent for research studies. There is concern and some evidence that the federal guidelines have impeded the advancement of resuscitation science. Several strategies have been suggested to improve the situation. These include 1) better education of resuscitation researchers regarding the federal guidelines, 2) a toolbox for resuscitation researchers clarifying the guidelines, 3) advocacy for the advancement of resuscitation science as a public good, and 4) a national research advisory board that provides unbiased reviews of clinical studies and guidelines for local institutional review boards regarding risks, benefits, and communication strategies for waiver of and exception from consent proposals.

AB - The survival of patients who present to the emergency department with severe injury or illness is dismal. Resuscitation researchers are interested in advancing the science of resuscitation, and clinical studies must be conducted to determine the best treatment protocols. These studies must reflect good science and must balance individual patient autonomy and safety with scientific progress that benefits society as a whole. Researchers find the present federal guidelines on waiver of and exception from informed consent to be time consuming and expensive. They see variability in the requirements as interpreted by institutional review boards. There is confusion regarding the requirements for public notification and response to community consultation. They believe that the majority of the public, as well as health care professionals, want resuscitation research to progress, but a minority of people and governmental regulators are uncomfortable with waiver of and exception from informed consent for research studies. There is concern and some evidence that the federal guidelines have impeded the advancement of resuscitation science. Several strategies have been suggested to improve the situation. These include 1) better education of resuscitation researchers regarding the federal guidelines, 2) a toolbox for resuscitation researchers clarifying the guidelines, 3) advocacy for the advancement of resuscitation science as a public good, and 4) a national research advisory board that provides unbiased reviews of clinical studies and guidelines for local institutional review boards regarding risks, benefits, and communication strategies for waiver of and exception from consent proposals.

KW - Federal guidelines

KW - Informed consent

KW - Resuscitation research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27144468017&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=27144468017&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1197/j.aem.2005.06.013

DO - 10.1197/j.aem.2005.06.013

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 1045

EP - 1049

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 11

ER -