Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16477820

Informed consent.

Sheldon Zink·Stacey Wertlieb·Laura Kimberly
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In the last half century, informed consent has become a central tenet of all research involving human subjects. However, even after the worldwide adoption of regulations aimed at ensuring the protection of subjects, some abuses continue. The installation of oversight bodies, such as institutional review boards, has prevented the bulk of deliberate mistreatment; however, unintentional coercion is still a problem. Informed consent is not limited to obtaining a signature on a consent form, but a process of decision making designed to protect the rights of patients and subjects. It is a constant, ongoing exchange of information between researcher and subject. Although research is invaluable to the advancement of medicine and transplantation, researchers have the responsibility to protect their subjects' rights and autonomy. This paper provides an overview of informed consent, principles behind the process, and implications of current regulations to assist readers in their endeavor for sound and ethical research.

Explore related subjects

DocumentationGovernment RegulationHumansInformed ConsentUnited StatesVulnerable PopulationsJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sheldon Zink, Stacey Wertlieb, Laura Kimberly. 2005. Informed consent.. https://doi.org/10.1177/152692480501500409

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Design and implementation of an ICU incident registry.

Due to its complexity intensive care is vulnerable to errors. On the ICU adults of the AMC (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) the available registries used for error reporting did not give insight in the occurrence of unwanted events, and did not lead to preventive measures. Therefore, a new registry has been developed on the basis of a literature study on the various terms and definitions that refer to unintended events, and on the methods to register and monitor them. As this registry intends to provide an overall insight into errors, a neutral term ('incident') -- which does not imply guilt or blame -- has been sought together with a broad definition. The attributes of an incident further describe the unwanted event, but they should not form an impediment for the ICU nurses and physicians to report. The properties of a registry that contribute to making it accessible and user friendly have been determined. This has resulted in an electronic registry where incidents can be reported rapidly, voluntarily, anonymously and free of legal consequences. Evaluation is required to see if the new registry indeed provides the ICU management with the intended information on the current situation on incidents. For further refinement of the design, additional development and adjustments are required. However, we expect that the awareness of errors of the ICU personnel has already improved, forming the first step to increased patient safety.

Documentation↗
PubMed2006

From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We characterize the quantity and quality of data tables and figures in reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) submitted to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and published in peer-reviewed journals. We investigate how the peer review process affected table and figure quality. METHODS: We reviewed 62 consecutive reports of RCTs submitted to the BMJ in 2001 that were later published in the BMJ (n=12) or elsewhere. We counted and categorized the tables and figures in both the initial submissions and published articles. Using standardized instruments and procedures, we analyzed the quality of these tables and figures and checked BMJ editorial documents to see whether changes were triggered by their review process. RESULTS: The numbers of tables and figures did not change markedly between submission and publication. Five percent of publications had no data tables; 56% had no data figures. Data density was low for published tables and figures. Tables seldom showed data stratified on important covariates; 88% of published tables were simple lists or were stratified on only 1 variable. Less than half the figures met their data presentation potential, with most failing to portray by-subject data and few displaying advanced features such as pairing, symbolic dimensionality, or small multiples. BMJ external peer reviewers seldom commented on tables or figures. CONCLUSION: Tables and figures can convey details and complex relationships not easily described in text. Although tables are included in most submitted and published articles, they are not presented optimally; figures are used sparingly and are also of suboptimal quality. Journals should consider improving their table and figure quality in the hope that improved graphics will empower readers to scrutinize the data, thereby dissuading authors from presenting biased analyses and misrepresented conclusions.

Documentation↗
PubMed2006

Risk analysis in radiation treatment: application of a new taxonomic structure.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiation treatment (RT) for cancer is susceptible to clinical incidents resulting from human errors and equipment failures. A systematic approach to collecting and processing incidents is required to manage patient risks. We describe the application of a new taxonomic structure for RT that supports risk analysis and organizational learning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic analysis of the RT process identified five process domains. Within each domain we defined incident type groups. We then constructed a database reflecting this taxonomic structure and populated it with incidents from publicly available sources. Querying this database provides insights into the nature and relative frequency of incidents in RT. RESULTS: There are relatively few reports of incidents in the Prescription domain compared with the Preparation and Treatment domains. There are also fewer reports of systematic and infrastructure incidents in comparison to sporadic and process incidents. Infrastructure incidents are mainly systematic in nature, while process incidents are more likely to be sporadic. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a standard, systems-oriented framework for incident reporting makes it difficult to learn from existing incident report sources. A clear understanding of the potential consequences and relationships between different incident types will guide incident reporting, resource allocation, and risk management efforts.

Documentation↗