About this item:

51 Views | 12 Downloads

Author Notes:

Catherine E. Ross, 333 Longwood Avenue Division of Medical Critical Care Boston, MA 02115, USA. Email: catherine.ross@childrens.harvard.edu

Catherine E. Ross: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Sonja Lehmann: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Project administration. Margaret M. Hayes: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Jolin B. Yamin: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Project administration. Robert A. Berg: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Monica E. Kleinman: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Michael W. Donnino: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Amy M. Sullivan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

We would like to thank the family members of Boston Children’s Hospital PICU patients who participated in the survey.

Subject:

Research Funding:

Dr. Ross’s work is supported by NHLBI: K23HL148312.

Dr. Yamin’s work is supported by NHLBI: T32HL155020.

Dr. Donnino’s work is supported by NHLBI: K24HL127101.

Keywords:

  • Exception from informed consent
  • Pediatric ICU
  • Family perspectives
  • Peri-arrest bolus epinephrine

Community consultation in the pediatric intensive care unit for an exception from informed consent Trial: A survey of patient caregivers

Tools:

Journal Title:

Resuscitation Plus

Volume:

Volume 13

Publisher:

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

Abstract:

Aim To explore perspectives of families in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) about an emergency interventional trial on peri-arrest bolus epinephrine for acute hypotension using Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC). Methods We performed face-to-face interviews with families whose children were hospitalized in the PICU. A research team member provided an educational presentation about the planned trial and administered a survey with open- and closed-ended items. Analyses included descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data. Results Sixty-seven participants contributed to 60 survey responses (53 individuals and 7 families for whom 2 family members participated). Most participants answered favorably toward the planned trial: 55/58 (95%) reported that the trial seemed “somewhat” or “very important”; 52/57 (91%) felt the use of EFIC was “somewhat” or “completely acceptable”; and 43/58 (74%) said they would be “somewhat” or “very likely” to allow their child to participate. Five themes emerged supporting participation in the planned trial: 1) trust in the clinical team; 2) familiarity with the study intervention (epinephrine); 3) study protocol being similar to standard care; 4) informed consent during an emergency was not feasible; and 5) importance of research. Barriers to potential participation included requests for additional time to decide about participating and misconceptions about study elements, especially eligibility. Conclusions Families of PICU patients generally supported plans for an emergency interventional trial using EFIC. Future inpatient EFIC studies may benefit from highlighting the themes identified here in their educational materials.

Copyright information:

© 2023 The Authors

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Export to EndNote