Community consultation in emergency neurotrauma research: results from a pre-protocol survey

Design and implementation of community consultation for research conducted under exception from informed consent regulations for the PreVent and the PreVent 2 trials: Changes over time and during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

Emergency clinical research has played an important role in improving outcomes for acutely ill patients. This is due in part to regulatory measures that allow Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires sponsor-investigators to engage in community consultation and public disclosure activities prior to initiating an Exception From Informed Consent trial. Various approaches to community consultation and public disclosure have been described and adapted to local contexts and Institutional Review Board (IRB) interpretations. The COVID-19 pandemic has precluded the ability to engage local communities through direct, in-person public venues, requiring research teams to find alternative ways to inform communities about emergency research.

METHODS

The PreVent and PreVent 2 studies were two Exception From Informed Consent trials of emergency endotracheal intubation, conducted in one geographic location for the PreVent Study and in two geographic locations for the PreVent 2 Study. During the period of the two studies, there was a substantial shift in the methodological approach spanning across the periods before and after the pandemic from telephone, to in-person, to virtual settings.

RESULTS

During the 10 years of implementation of Exception From Informed Consent activities for the two PreVent trials, there was overall favorable public support for the concept of Exception From Informed Consent trials and for the importance of emergency clinical research. Community concerns were few and also did not differ much by method of contact. Attendance was higher with the implementation of virtual technology to reach members of the community, and overall feedback was more positive compared with telephone contacts or in-person events. However, the proportion of survey responses received after completion of the remote, live event was substantially lower, with a greater proportion of respondents having higher education levels. This suggests less active engagement after completion of the synchronous activity and potentially higher selection bias among respondents. Importantly, we found that engagement with local community leaders was a key component to develop appropriate plans to connect with the public.

CONCLUSION

The PreVent experience illustrated operational advantages and disadvantages to community consultation conducted primarily by telephone, in-person events, or online activities. Approaches to enhance community acceptance included partnering with community leaders to optimize the communication strategies and trust building with the involvement of Institutional Review Board representatives during community meetings. Researchers might need to pivot from in-person planning to virtual techniques while maintaining the ability to engage with the public with two-way communication approaches. Due to less active engagement, and potential for selection bias in the responders, further research is needed to address the costs and benefits of virtual community consultation and public disclosure activities compared to in-person events.

Equity in Clinical Care and Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

People with disorders of consciousness (DoC) are characteristically unable to synchronously participate in decision-making about clinical care or research. The inability to self-advocate exacerbates preexisting socioeconomic and geographic disparities, which include the wide variability observed across individuals, hospitals, and countries in access to acute care, expertise, and sophisticated diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic interventions. Concerns about equity for people with DoC are particularly notable when they lack a surrogate decision-maker (legally referred to as "unrepresented" or "unbefriended"). Decisions about both short-term and long-term life-sustaining treatment typically rely on neuroprognostication and individual patient preferences that carry additional ethical considerations for people with DoC, as even individuals with well thought out advance directives cannot anticipate every possible situation to guide such decisions. Further challenges exist with the inclusion of people with DoC in research because consent must be completed (in most circumstances) through a surrogate, which excludes those who are unrepresented and may discourage investigators from exploring questions related to this population. In this article, the Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group reviews equity considerations in clinical care and research involving persons with DoC in the following domains: (1) access to acute care and expertise, (2) access to diagnostics and therapeutics, (3) neuroprognostication, (4) medical decision-making for unrepresented people, (5) end-of-life decision-making, (6) access to postacute rehabilitative care, (7) access to research, (8) inclusion of unrepresented people in research, and (9) remuneration and reciprocity for research participation. The goal of this discussion is to advance equitable, harmonized, guideline-directed, and goal-concordant care for people with DoC of all backgrounds worldwide, prioritizing the ethical standards of respect for autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Although the focus of this evaluation is on people with DoC, much of the discussion can be extrapolated to other critically ill persons worldwide.

Meeting unique requirements: Community consultation and public disclosure for research in emergency setting using exception from informed consent

BACKGROUND

Exception from informed consent (EFIC) regulations for research in emergency settings contain unique requirements for community consultation and public disclosure. These requirements address ethical challenges intrinsic to this research context. Multiple approaches have evolved to accomplish these activities that may reflect and advance different aims. This scoping review was designed to identify areas of consensus and lingering uncertainty in the literature.

METHODS

Scoping review methodology was used. Conceptual and empirical literature related to community consultation and public disclosure for EFIC research was included and identified through a structured search using Embase, HEIN Online, PubMed, and Web of Science. Data were extracted using a standardized tool with domains for major literature categories.

RESULTS

Among 84 manuscripts, major domains included conceptual or policy issues, reports of community consultation processes and results, and reports of public disclosure processes and results. Areas of consensus related to community consultation included the need for a two-way exchange of information and use of multiple methods. Public acceptance of personal EFIC enrollment is commonly 64% to 85%. There is less consensus regarding how to assess attitudes, what "communities" to prioritize, and how to determine adequacy for individual projects. Core goals of public disclosure are less well developed; no metrics exist for assessing adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple methods are used to meet community consultation and public disclosure requirements. There remain no settled norms for assessing adequacy of public disclosure, and there is lingering debate about needed breadth and depth of community consultation.

Traumatic acute subdural hematoma and coma: retrospective cohort of surgically treated patients

BACKGROUND

A subdural hematoma is defined as clot formation in the subdural space after vessel rupture or brain parenchyma damage. Several demographic and tomographic factors were associated to poor prognosis, although some debate according to their specific roles still remains.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of comatose patients admitted to a single-institution, tertiary hospital center, between the years 2013 and 2019 with traumatic acute subdural hematoma requiring surgical evacuation were studied. Demographic and tomographic data were obtained from medical records. Univariate and multivariate statistical analysis were performed, using a value of P < 0.05 for significance.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were selected using the criteria and a total of 37 (48%) head CT exams were evaluated. The overall mortality was 57.1% and achieved 100% at ≥75-years-old subgroup. Univariate analysis only found young age as a good prognosis factor (P = 0.002). Gender (P = 0.784), abnormal pupillary response (P = 0.643), midline shift (P = 0.874), clot thickness (P = 0.206), compressed basal cisterns (P = 0.643), hematoma side (P = 0.879), and subarachnoid hemorrhage (P = 0.510) showed no association. Multivariate analysis showed no statistically significant association between covariates.

CONCLUSION

Traumatic acute subdural hematoma is a life-threatening condition. Younger age was the only positive prognostic factor identified. More research is necessary to establish age as a rule-out criterion to surgical indication.

Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: 2020 Update of the Decompressive Craniectomy Recommendations

When the fourth edition of the Brain Trauma Foundation's Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury were finalized in late 2016, it was known that the results of the RESCUEicp (Trial of Decompressive Craniectomy for Traumatic Intracranial Hypertension) randomized controlled trial of decompressive craniectomy would be public after the guidelines were released. The guideline authors decided to proceed with publication but to update the decompressive craniectomy recommendations later in the spirit of "living guidelines," whereby topics are updated more frequently, and between new editions, when important new evidence is published. The update to the decompressive craniectomy chapter presented here integrates the findings of the RESCUEicp study as well as the recently published 12-mo outcome data from the DECRA (Decompressive Craniectomy in Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury) trial. Incorporation of these publications into the body of evidence led to the generation of 3 new level-IIA recommendations; a fourth previously presented level-IIA recommendation remains valid and has been restated. To increase the utility of the recommendations, we added a new section entitled Incorporating the Evidence into Practice. This summary of expert opinion provides important context and addresses key issues for practitioners, which are intended to help the clinician utilize the available evidence and these recommendations. The full guideline can be found at: https://braintrauma.org/guidelines/guidelines-for-the-management-of-severe-tbi-4th-ed#/.

Defining New Research Questions and Protocols in the Field of Traumatic Brain Injury through Public Engagement: Preliminary Results and Review of the Literature

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most common cause of death and disability in the age group below 40 years. The financial cost of loss of earnings and medical care presents a massive burden to family, society, social care, and healthcare, the cost of which is estimated at £1 billion per annum (about brain injury (online)). At present, we still lack a full understanding on the pathophysiology of TBI, and biomarkers represent the next frontier of breakthrough discoveries. Unfortunately, many tenets limit their widespread adoption. Brain tissue sampling is the mainstay of diagnosis in neuro-oncology; following on this path, we hypothesise that information gleaned from neural tissue samples obtained in TBI patients upon hospital admission may correlate with outcome data in TBI patients, enabling an early, accurate, and more comprehensive pathological classification, with the intent of guiding treatment and future research. We proposed various methods of tissue sampling at opportunistic times: two methods rely on a dedicated sample being taken; the remainder relies on tissue that would otherwise be discarded. To gauge acceptance of this, and as per the guidelines set out by the National Research Ethics Service, we conducted a survey of TBI and non-TBI patients admitted to our Trauma ward and their families. 100 responses were collected between December 2017 and July 2018, incorporating two redesigns in response to patient feedback. 75.0% of respondents said that they would consent to a brain biopsy performed at the time of insertion of an intracranial pressure (ICP) bolt. 7.0% replied negatively and 18.0% did not know. 70.0% would consent to insertion of a jugular bulb catheter to obtain paired intracranial venous samples and peripheral samples for analysis of biomarkers. Over 94.0% would consent to neural tissue from ICP probes, external ventricular drains (EVD), and lumbar drains (LD) to be salvaged, and 95.0% would consent to intraoperative samples for further analysis.

Dex-CSDH randomised, placebo-controlled trial of dexamethasone for chronic subdural haematoma: report of the internal pilot phase

The Dex-CSDH trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of dexamethasone for patients with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma. The trial commenced with an internal pilot, whose primary objective was to assess the feasibility of multi-centre recruitment. Primary outcome data collection and safety were also assessed, whilst maintaining blinding. We aimed to recruit 100 patients from United Kingdom Neurosurgical Units within 12 months. Trial participants were randomised to a 2-week course of dexamethasone or placebo in addition to receiving standard care (which could include surgery). The primary outcome measure of the trial is the modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. This pilot recruited ahead of target; 100 patients were recruited within nine months of commencement. 47% of screened patients consented to recruitment. The primary outcome measure was collected in 98% of patients. No safety concerns were raised by the independent data monitoring and ethics committee and only five patients were withdrawn from drug treatment. Pilot trial data can inform on the design and resource provision for substantive trials. This internal pilot was successful in determining recruitment feasibility. Excellent follow-up rates were achieved and exploratory outcome measures were added to increase the scientific value of the trial.

When Time Is Critical, Is Informed Consent Less So? A Discussion of Patient Autonomy in Emergency Neurosurgery

Neurosurgical interventions frequently occur in an emergency setting. In this setting, patients often have impaired consciousness and are unable to directly express their values and wishes regarding their treatment. The limited time available for clinical decision making has great ethical implications, as the informed consent procedure may become compromised. The ethical situation may be further challenged by different views between the patient, family members, and the neurosurgeon; the presence of advance directives; the use of an innovative procedure; or if the procedure is part of a research project. This moral opinion piece presents the implications of time constraints and a lack of patient capacity for autonomous decision making in emergency neurosurgical situations. Potential solutions to these challenges are presented that may help to improve ethical patient management in emergency settings. Emergency neurosurgery challenges the respect of autonomy of the patient. The outcome in most scenarios will rely on the neurosurgeon acting in a professional way to manage each unique situation in an ethically sound manner.

Detailed systematic analysis of recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials in patients with an unscheduled admission to hospital

OBJECTIVES

To examine the design and findings of recruitment studies in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with an unscheduled hospital admission (UHA), to consider how to optimise recruitment in future RCTs of this nature.

DESIGN

Studies within the ORRCA database (Online Resource for Recruitment Research in Clinical TriAls; www.orrca.org.uk) that reported on recruitment to RCTs involving UHAs in patients >18 years were included. Extracted data included trial clinical details, and the rationale and main findings of the recruitment study.

RESULTS

Of 3114 articles populating ORRCA, 39 recruitment studies were eligible, focusing on 68 real and 13 hypothetical host RCTs. Four studies were prospectively planned investigations of recruitment interventions, one of which was a nested RCT. Most recruitment papers were reports of recruitment experiences from one or more 'real' RCTs (n=24) or studies using hypothetical RCTs (n=11). Rationales for conducting recruitment studies included limited time for informed consent (IC) and patients being too unwell to provide IC. Methods to optimise recruitment included providing patients with trial information in the prehospital setting, technology to allow recruiters to cover multiple sites, screening logs to uncover recruitment barriers, and verbal rather than written information and consent.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of high-quality research into recruitment in RCTs involving UHAs with only one nested randomised study evaluating a recruitment intervention. Among the remaining studies, methods to optimise recruitment focused on how to improve information provision in the prehospital setting and use of screening logs. Future research in this setting should focus on the prospective evaluation of the well-developed interventions to optimise recruitment.

To Retain or Remove the Bone Flap During Evacuation of Acute Subdural Hematoma: Factors Associated with Perioperative Brain Edema

BACKGROUND

The fate of the bone flap is a significant decision during surgical treatment of acute subdural hematoma (SDH). A general guideline revolves around the surgeon's concern for brain edema. Limited studies, however, have focused on the factors that contribute to perioperative brain edema.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2015, 38 patients who underwent decompressive craniectomy for acute SDH were reviewed. Clinical data were extracted (age, sex, initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, sodium level, hematocrit, and intraoperative blood loss). From the preoperative scan, SDH volume, midline shift (MLS), and volume within the skull (to estimate baseline brain volume) were measured. From the postoperative scan, brain volume (including any herniating regions) was measured. Δ% was defined as the percentage change in postoperative brain volume compared with preoperative volume. Evident contralateral injury, contusions, and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) were noted.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients demonstrated negative Δ%. Univariate analysis found significant correlations between Δ% and preoperative MLS, initial GCS, presence of IVH, and presence of contralateral injury (P < 0.05). A multiple regression for Δ% elicited a significant model (F [3, 34] = 17.387, P < 0.01) with R2 0.605, where Δ% = 16.197 - 1.246*GCS - 0.986 * MLS + 3.292 * IVH (with 0 = no IVH, 1 = presence of IVH).

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of patients can exhibit negative Δ%, or relative brain compression after decompression of SDH. For these patients, replacement of the bone flap may be reasonable to avoid obligatory interval cranioplasty. Preoperative MLS, initial GCS, and presence of IVH can help predict whether overall brain volume will swell or compress within the normal confines of the skull. This can guide the decision to retain or remove the bone flap.

Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness

Background

A rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research.

Methods

We conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis.

Results

We screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented.

Conclusions

Third-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes.

PROSPERO protocol registration number

CRD42014014000

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1110-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.