Multistudy Research Operations in the ICU: An Interprofessional Pandemic-Informed Approach

OBJECTIVES: Proliferation of COVID-19 research underscored the need for improved awareness among investigators, research staff and bedside clinicians of the operational details of clinical studies. The objective was to describe the genesis, goals, participation, procedures, and outcomes of two research operations committees in an academic ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Two-phase, single-center multistudy cohort. SETTING: University-affiliated ICU in Hamilton, ON, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult patients in the ICU, medical stepdown unit, or COVID-19 ward. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: An interprofessional COVID Collaborative was convened at the pandemic onset within our department, to proactively coordinate studies, help navigate multiple authentic consent encounters by different research staff, and determine which studies would be suitable for coenrollment. From March 2020 to May 2021, five non-COVID trials continued, two were paused then restarted, and five were launched. Over 15 months, 161 patients were involved in 215 trial enrollments, 110 (51.1%) of which were into a COVID treatment trial. The overall informed consent rate (proportion agreed of those eligible and approached including a priori and deferred consent models) was 83% (215/259). The informed consent rate was lower for COVID-19 trials (110/142, 77.5%) than other trials (105/117, 89.7%;p = 0.01). Patients with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to be coenrolled in two or more studies (29/77, 37.7%) compared with other patients (13/84, 15.5%;p = 0.002). Review items for each new study were collated, refined, and evolved into a modifiable checklist template to set up each study for success. The COVID Collaborative expanded to a more formal Department of Critical Care Research Operations Committee in June 2021, supporting sustainable research operations during and beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Structured coordination and increased communication about research operations among diverse research stakeholders cultivated a sense of shared purpose and enhanced the integrity of clinical research operations.

Monitoring and auditing protocol adherence, data integrity and ethical conduct of a randomized clinical trial: A case study.

PURPOSE: To categorize, quantify and interpret findings documented in feedback letters of monitoring or auditing visits for an investigator-initiated, peer-review funded multicenter randomized trial testing probiotics for critically ill patients. MATERIALS & METHODS: In 37 Canadian centers, monitoring and auditing visits were performed by 3 trained individuals; findings were reported in feedback letters. At trial termination, we performed duplicate content analysis on letters, categorizing observations first into unique findings, followed by 10 pre-determined trial quality management domains. We further classified each observation into a) missing operational records, b) errors in process, and potential threats to c) data integrity, d) patient privacy or e) safety. RESULTS: Across 37 monitoring or auditing visits, 75 unique findings were categorized into 10 domains. Most frequently, observations were in domains of training documentation (180/566 [32%]) and the informed consent process (133/566 [23%]). Most observations were missing operational records (438/566 [77%]) rather than errors in process (128/566 [23%]). Of 75 findings, 13 (62/566 observations [11%]) posed a potential threat to data integrity, 1 (1/566 observation [0.18%]) to patient privacy, and 9 (49/566 observations [8.7%]) to patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring and auditing findings predominantly concerned missing documentation with minimal threats to data integrity, patient privacy or safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPECT (Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial): NCT02462590.

Sacrifice and solidarity: a qualitative study of family experiences of death and bereavement in critical care settings during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Pandemic-related restrictions are expected to continue to shape end-of-life care and impact the experiences of dying hospitalised patients and their families. OBJECTIVE: To understand families' experiences of loss and bereavement during and after the death of their loved one amidst the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Three acute care units in a Canadian tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Family members of 28 hospitalised patients who died from March-July 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative semistructured interviews conducted 6-16 months after patient death inquired about family experiences before and beyond the death of their loved one and garnered suggestions to improve end-of-life care. RESULTS: Pandemic restrictions had consequences for families of dying hospitalised patients. Most family members described an attitude of acquiescence, some framing their experience as a sacrifice made for the public good. Families appreciated how clinicians engendered trust in the name of social solidarity while trying to mitigate the negative impact of family separation. However, fears about the patient's experience of isolation and changes to postmortem rituals also created despair and contributed to long-lasting grief. CONCLUSION: Profound loss and enduring grief were described by family members whose final connections to their loved one were constrained by pandemic circumstances. Families observed solidarity among clinical staff and experienced a sense of unity with staff, which alleviated some distress. Their suggestions to improve end-of-life care given pandemic restrictions included frequent, flexible communication, exceptions for family presence when safe, and targeted efforts to connect patients whose isolation is intensified by functional impairment or limited technological access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04602520; Results.

Clinician Perspectives on Caring for Dying Patients During the Pandemic : A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has affected the hospital experience for patients, visitors, and staff. OBJECTIVE: To understand clinician perspectives on adaptations to end-of-life care for dying patients and their families during the pandemic. DESIGN: Mixed-methods embedded study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04602520). SETTING: 3 acute care medical units in a tertiary care hospital from 16 March to 1 July 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 45 dying patients, 45 family members, and 45 clinicians. INTERVENTION: During the pandemic, clinicians continued an existing practice of collating personal information about dying patients and "what matters most," eliciting wishes, and implementing acts of compassion. MEASUREMENTS: Themes from semistructured clinician interviews that were summarized with representative quotations. RESULTS: Many barriers to end-of-life care arose because of infection control practices that mandated visiting restrictions and personal protective equipment, with attendant practical and psychological consequences. During hospitalization, family visits inside or outside the patient's room were possible for 36 patients (80.0%); 13 patients (28.9%) had virtual visits with a relative or friend. At the time of death, 20 patients (44.4%) had a family member at the bedside. Clinicians endeavored to prevent unmarked deaths by adopting advocacy roles to "fill the gap" of absent family and by initiating new and established ways to connect patients and relatives. LIMITATION: Absence of clinician symptom or wellness metrics; a single-center design. CONCLUSION: Clinicians expressed their humanity through several intentional practices to preserve personalized, compassionate end-of-life care for dying hospitalized patients during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Canadian Critical Care Trials Group Research Coordinator Fund.

Principles Guiding Nonpandemic Critical Care Research During a Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the importance of critical care clinical research that is not pandemic-focused during pandemic times; outline principles to assist in the prioritization of nonpandemic research during pandemic times; and propose a guiding framework for decisions about whether, when and how to continue nonpandemic research while still honoring the moral and scientific imperative to launch research that is pandemic-focused. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: Using in-person, email, and videoconference exchanges, we convened an interprofessional clinical research group, conducted a literature review of empirical studies, ethics documents and expert commentaries (2010 to present), and viewed traditional and social media posts (March 2020 to May 2020). Stakeholder consultation involved scientific, ethics, clinical, and administrative leaders. SETTING: Clinical research in the ICU. PATIENTS: Patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: While clinical research should be prioritized to advantage patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in order to care for affected patients, it ideally would not unduly disadvantage patients without coronavirus disease 2019. Thus, timely, rigorous, relevant, and ethical clinical research is needed to improve the care and optimize outcomes for both patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019, acknowledging how many studies that are not exclusively focused on coronavirus disease 2019 remain relevant to patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Considerations to continue nonpandemic-focused research include the status of the pandemic, local jurisdictional guidance, capacity and safety of bedside and research personnel, disposition of patients already enrolled in nonpandemic studies, analyzing characteristics of each nonpandemic-focused study, research oversight, and final reporting requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberation about continuing nonpandemic research should use objective, transparent criteria considering several aspects of the research process such as bedside and research staff safety, infection control, the informed consent model, protocol complexity, data collection, and implementation integrity. Decisions to pause or pursue nonpandemic research should be proportionate, transparent, and revisited as the pandemic abates.