Background The consent management is an essential component for supporting the implementation of consents and withdrawals and thus, the realisation of patient’s rights. In MIRACUM, one of the four consortia of the Medical Informatics Initiative (MII), ten university hospitals intend to integrate the generic Informed Consent Service® (gICS) in their Data Integration Center (DIC). To provide a tool that supports the local workflows of the MIRACUM sites, the gICS should be improved. Methods We used three standardised questionnaires with 46 questions to elicit requirements from the ten sites. Each site answered the questions from the current and the desired future perspective. This made it possible to understand the individual processes at each site and it was possible to identify features and improvements that were generally necessary. Results The results of the survey were classified according to their impact on the gICS. Feature requests of new functionalities, improvements of already implemented functionalities and conceptual support for implementing processes were identified. This is the basis for an improved gICS release to support the ten sites’ individual consent management processes. Conclusions A release plan for the feature requests and improvements was coordinated with all sites. All sites have confirmed that the implementation of these features and enhancements will support their software-based consent management processes.

Background Data collected during routine health care and ensuing analytical results bear the potential to provide valuable information to improve the overall health care of patients. However, little is known about how patients prefer to be informed about the possible usage of their routine data and/or biosamples for research purposes before reaching a consent decision. Specifically, we investigated the setting, the timing and the responsible staff for the information and consent process. Methods We performed a quasi-randomized controlled trial and compared the method by which patients were informed either in the patient admission area following patient admission by the same staff member (Group A) or in a separate room by another staff member (Group B). The consent decision was hypothetical in nature. Additionally, we evaluated if there was the need for additional time after the information session and before taking the consent decision. Data were collected during a structured interview based on questionnaires where participants reflected on the information and consent process they went through. Results Questionnaire data were obtained from 157 participants in Group A and 106 participants in Group B. Overall, participants in both groups were satisfied with their experienced process and with the way information was provided. They reported that their (hypothetical) consent decision was freely made. Approximately half of the interested participants in Group B did not show up in the separate room, while all interested participants in Group A could be informed about the secondary use of their routine data and left-over samples. No participants, except for one in Group B, wanted to take extra time for their consent decision. The hypothetical consent rate for both routine data and left-over samples was very high in both groups. Conclusions The willingness to support medical research by allowing the use of routine data and left-over samples seems to be widespread among patients. Information concerning this secondary data use may be given by trained administrative staff immediately following patient admission. Patients mainly prefer making a consent decision directly after information is provided and discussed. Furthermore, less patients are informed when the process is organized in a separate room.