1 / 21

David R Nelson, MD, FAASLD University of Florida

Consent2Share Successes and Challenges in Developing and Implementing Electronic Informed Consent Tools for Research. David R Nelson, MD, FAASLD University of Florida. Disclosure. I and my spouse have no relevant relationships with commercial interests to disclose. Learning Objectives.

fallon
Download Presentation

David R Nelson, MD, FAASLD University of Florida

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Consent2Share • Successes and Challenges in Developing and Implementing Electronic Informed Consent Tools for Research David R Nelson, MD, FAASLD University of Florida

  2. Disclosure • I and my spouse have no relevant relationships with commercial interests to disclose. AMIA 2017 | amia.org

  3. Learning Objectives • After participating in this session the learner should be better able to: • Discuss technological, process, and ethical challenges and keys to success in designing electronic consent tools for point-of-care use. • Describe operational and technical challenges and keys to success in integrating research consent tools with EHRs and other enterprise information systems. • Critique qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluating the effectiveness of electronic informed consent tools. AMIA 2017 | amia.org

  4. UF Integrated Data Repository Healthcare Data Integrated Data Repository Privacy Wall Outpatient EMR Cohort Discovery Inpatient EMR Research Extract (PHI removed) Billing Extract-Transform-Load Claims i2b2 DataMart(Limited Data Set) Labs Pharmacy

  5. How many people ages 45+ with a low back pain diagnosis were in the ED in 2016? • i2b2 • Informatics for Integrating Biology • and the Bedside • N = 3,468 patients • Female: 2,055 • Male: 1,413 • Black/African American 1,006 • White: 2,335 • Other: 127

  6. “Consent2Share” • A process by which patients in the UFHealth System can agree to be contacted by a researcher in the future to ask the patient if they might be interested in a research study. • Built into the EMR (EPIC) • Becomes one of the navigating terms • Patient counts available via i2b2

  7. What Type of Patients Can Agree? • Any Adult (older than18 years old) • Only those that can consent for themselves • A wife or husband cannot consent for their spouse • Any Child (younger than 18 years old) • Parent or legal guardian must agree for child • If child is >7, child should also agree by signing consent form. • When the child turns 18, they have to then consent for themselves

  8. Consent2Share - Process • Consent form (eConsent) is included in the group of consent forms provided on the iPad at admission to the clinic • This research consent is always the last consent that will appear. • Any straight forward questions are addressed by trained admissions staff, other questions can be referred to either their doctor or the Consent2Share Hotline listed on the consent form • Patients are given time to review • Offer to print out a copy of the research consent if patient wants one.

  9. eConsent2Share Form- Opt In

  10. Pediatric Consent What they are agreeing to.

  11. Help line Choose “Yes” or “No”

  12. Patient’s Decisions • Potential Subject’s Outcomes • Clear Form -will be presented again at next clinic visit • They choose yes or no • “Yes”– indicated in EPIC, consent will not be presented again • “No”- indicated in EPIC, consent will not be presented again • “Ask Me Next Time” – indicated in EPIC, will present again at next clinic visit • Enrollment decision lasts unless patient changes their mind • If a minor, will present again after their 18th birthday • They can still consent to other research studies

  13. View from the Researcher • Use i2b2 to query IDR to determine if there are sufficient potential study subjects • If they need to contact potential subjects, can factor in Consent2Share • Submit to the IRB, if approved, • Submit query to the Consent2Share data team • UF Data Management builds query list of patients and does QA • List of potential subjects with contact information is provided

  14. IDR Linkage of Cohort Discovery To Consent

  15. Integrated Data Repository and Consent2Share

  16. Metrics to Date • 58 studies have used Consent2Share to identify patient cohorts • 28,205 potential study subject’s names provided to investigators • 14 patients have withdrawn from Consent2Share • 2 patients in “protected” classes (inmate, brain trauma) • 1 patient deceased • 11 contacted hotline-referred to research subject advocate 39,820 have Consented to Share

  17. Recruitment Yield From IDR-Consent Linkage Research Example • Study: A study to identify the frequency of lysosomal acid lipase deficiency (rare genetic disease) in at-risk patient populations • Cohort Discovery: IDR cohort query identified 661 patients who met the required phenotype to be screened and had consented to be contacted (Consent2Share) • Recruitment Strategies: • High trust / high touch (Condition 1, C1): Pts with an existing relationship with study team (GI/Liver clinics) called by a study team coordinator • Low trust / low touch (Condition 2A, C2A): Non-specialty clinic patients sent a letter to contact study team if interested • Low trust / high touch (Condition 2B, C2B): Non-specialty clinic patients sent a letter, followed by coordinator call if no response after two weeks Flood-Grady E, et al. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 2017

  18. Recruitment Yield From IDR-Consent Linkage Research Example Patients Reached, Recruited, and Enrolled with Condition C2B n (%) C2A n (%) C1 n (%) Reach Eligible Contacted 624 19 (3) 605 120 (20) 37 37 (100*) 10 (2) 53 (9) 17 (46*) Recruited 50 (94*) 8 (80) 12 (71) Enrolled Conclusion: Contact registries can facilitate rapid cohort identification and efficient screening of study participants * Difference is significant at p< 0.001 Flood-Grady E, et al. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 2017

  19. Lesson’s Learned and Next Steps • Started out with a paper consent printed from the EMR • Asked for re-contact and left over tissue • After signed, would be scanned into the EMR • Self audit discovered 75 consents we couldn’t find • Stopped study, did a complete audit of 10,000 consent forms • Simplified the consent form and eliminated tissue collections • Moved to an EMR generated eConsent • Allowed expansion of program • Lower costs and more reliable • Next Steps • Integrate with EPIC patient portal • System-wide expansion across both GNV and Jacksonville campuses

  20. Thank you! Email me at: nelsodr@ufl.edu

More Related