1 / 10

PA Court Ruling on Consent

Learn about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on informed consent for medical procedures and how it impacts healthcare providers and researchers. Discover the importance of obtaining proper consent and the procedures that require it.

gray
Download Presentation

PA Court Ruling on Consent

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. PA Court Ruling on Consent Patrick Herbison, MEd, CIP Assistant Director of Compliance Office of Human Research (OHR)

  2. Shinal Case PA Supreme Court: Shinal vs. Toms M.D. – Decided 6/20/2017 (Treatment not Research) Mrs. Shinal suffered injury as a result of brain surgery. Although Dr. Toms indicated that he had discussed the procedures, risks, benefits and alternatives, his physician assistant also discussed aspects of the procedure and obtained consent. The Court Decided: “ . . . a physician may not delegate to others his or her obligation to provide sufficient information in order to obtain a patient’s informed consent.”

  3. Mcare- MEDICAL CARE AVAILABILITY AND REDUCTION OF ERROR ACT When Consent is Required - The following list of procedures is based on Pennsylvania’s Mcare law as applicable to research: • Administration of anesthesia • Performance of surgical procedures • Administration of chemotherapy and radiation • Administration of blood and/or human source products • Insertion of a surgical device or appliance • Performance of any HIV-related testing • Administration of an experimental medication, use of an experimental device, use of an approved medication or device in an experimental manner, or removal of bone, fluids or tissue for use in research or in the manufacture of a product. (This would not include leftover tissues from clinical procedures.) • Invasive procedures, such as halo placement, central venous catheterization, pulmonary artery catheterization. (Routine needle sticks, such as peripheral intravenous catheter placement, vaccination, and venipuncture are not considered invasive in the context of this policy.)

  4. OHR-8 Consent Form – Investigator Signature(See Next Slide) • Decision made in consultation with the Office of Legal Affairs • Modify the investigator signature line on the consent form.

  5. PA Court Ruling on Consent • In addition, consent must be obtained by a physician per Hospital Policy.

  6. Implementation • It is the IRB reviewer’s responsibility to ensure the correct investigator signature option is being used. • Policy IC 701 has been revised. • New Studies must use new OHR-8. • The correct investigator signature text must be added at the time of continuing review. • Consent forms do not have to be amended immediately.

  7. OHR-2 and OHR-9 Additions • OHR-2 and OHR-9 – New Sections Added • Submitter checks: • Any Mcare procedures included in the study • The proposed investigator signature text • IRB Reviewer cross checks the OHR-2/9, the OHR-8, and the protocol to ensure the correct investigator signature option is being used.

  8. Reviewer Form RQ-1 Addition • RQ-1 Reviewer Form – Also has a prompt added to check for the correct investigator signature text.

  9. Questions? Comments?

More Related