Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

Background The U.S. federal regulation “Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) for Emergency Research,” 21 Code of Federal Regulations 50.24, permits emergency research without informed consent under limited conditions. Additional safeguards to protect human subjects include requirements for community consultation and public disclosure prior to starting the research. Because the regulations are vague about these requirements, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) determine the adequacy of these activities at a local level. Thus there is potential for broad interpretation and practice variation. Aim To describe the variation of community consultation and public disclosure activities approved by IRBs, and the effectiveness of this process for a multi-center, EFIC, pediatric status epilepticus clinical research trial. Methods: Community consultation and public disclosure activities were analyzed for each of 15 participating sites. Surveys were conducted with participants enrolled in the status epilepticus trial to assess the effectiveness of public disclosure dissemination prior to study enrollment. Results Every IRB, among the 15 participating sites, had a varied interpretation of EFIC regulations for community consultation and public disclosure activities. IRBs required various combinations of focus groups, interviews, surveys, and meetings for community consultation; news releases, mailings, and public service announcements for public disclosure. At least 4,335 patients received information about the study from these efforts. 158 chose to be included in the “Opt Out” list. Of the 304 participants who were enrolled under EFIC, 12 (5%) had heard about the study through community consultation or public disclosure activities. The activities reaching the highest number of participants were surveys and focus groups associated with existing meetings. Public disclosure activities were more efficient and cost-effective if they were part of an in-hospital resource for patients and families. Conclusion There is substantial variation in IRBs' interpretations of the federal regulations for community consultation and public disclosure. One of the goals of community consultation and public disclosure efforts for emergency research is to provide community members an opportunity to opt-out of EFIC research; however, rarely do patients or their legally authorized representatives report having learned about a study prior to enrollment.

Background: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial was a randomized, controlled trial designed to measure survival to hospital discharge following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) in community facilities trained and equipped to provide PAD, compared with community facilities trained to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without any capacity for defibrillation. Objectives: To report the implementation of community-based lay responder emergency response programs in 1,260 participating facilities recruited for the PAD Trial in the United States and Canada. Methods: This was a descriptive study of the characteristics of participating facilities, volunteers, and automated external defibrillator (AED) placements compiled by the PAD Trial, and a qualitative study of factors that facilitated or impeded implementation of emergency lay responder programs using focus groups of PAD Trial site coordinators. Results: The PAD Trial enrolled 1,260 community facilities (14.8% residential), with 20,400 lay volunteers (mean 6 standard deviation = 13.4 6 10.7 per facility)