The Performance of the Surrogate Informed Consent Process for Critical Care Research: A Multi-Modal Study of Investigators, Coordinators, Surrogates, and Patients
Authors' conclusion
This study identified several strategies that could enhance the surrogate informed consent process for critical care research.
Study context
- Population
- Principal investigators (PIs), research coordinators (RCs), surrogate decision makers approached about a critical care research clinical trial and, when possible, patients who had been critically ill, at US academic medical centers61 in focus groups/interviews
- Participants
- 230 participants
- Comparison
- Surrogate decision makers (SDMs) and/or patients vs PIs/RCs
- RCn = 105
- PIn = 90
- Surrogatesn = 27
- Patientsn = 8
- Outcome
- Best practices for the surrogate informed consent process
Methodological detailsmulticentre, surveys, focus groups, semi-structured interviews
- Multicentre
- Surveys
- Focus groups
- Semi-structured interviews
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- All groups believed RCs (not PIs) should conduct consent: not authority figures, fewer perceived conflicts of interest
- Surrogates appreciated waiting for an optimal time to initiate contact, physical space and a defined period to decide
- Telephone/electronic consent felt less effective than in-person, but could include SDMs living far away
- SDMs and/or patients vs PI/RCs: P < 0.0001
- SDMs and/or patients vs PI/RCs: P = 0.0016
- SDMs vs PI/RCs: P = 0.001
- SDMs vs PI/RCs: P < 0.0001
Original publication
The Performance of the Surrogate Informed Consent Process for Critical Care Research: A Multi-Modal Study of Investigators, Coordinators, Surrogates, and Patients. Chest. Published 6 June 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →