Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital

Informed consent procedures in patients with an acute inability to provide informed consent: Policy and practice in the CENTER-TBI study

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Narrative critical care: A literary analysis of first-person critical illness pathographies

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. The search for the holy grail continues: The difficult journey towards the ideal fluid!

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Mean arterial pressure during targeted temperature management and renal function after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Roel P J van Wijk
  • Jeroen T J M van Dijck
  • Marjolein Timmers
  • Ernest van Veen
  • Giuseppe Citerio
  • Hester F Lingsma
  • Andrew I R Maas
  • David K Menon
  • Wilco C Peul
  • Nino Stocchetti
  • Erwin J O Kompanje
  • CENTER-TBI investigators and participants
  • Daniel Kondziella (Member of study group)
  • Martin Ejler Fabricius (Member of study group)
View graph of relations

PURPOSE: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice.

METHODS: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries.

RESULTS: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%).

CONCLUSIONS: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Critical Care
Pages (from-to)6-15
Number of pages10
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2020

ID: 61294044