Living with an MPN in Ireland: patients' and caregivers' perspectives.

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are associated with a high disease burden, reduced quality of life and shortened survival. The aim of this questionnaire was to gain patients' and caregivers' perspectives on the impact of living with an MPN in the Republic of Ireland. An Irish adaptation of the 'Global MPN Landmark survey' was conducted. Fifty-one patients and 44 caregivers completed the questionnaire. Patients reported a wide variety of symptoms at the time of questionnaire completion; fatigue, bone pain and pruritus being most frequently reported. Approximately one-third of respondents from each of the groups (patients and caregivers) reported a negative impact of MPNs on their emotional wellbeing and daily lives. The study findings revealed that, despite treatment, symptom burden remains high, and several unmet needs exist, including educational, emotional and peer group support. Interventions that focus on reducing symptom burden and addressing these unmet needs, may improve the quality of life for patients with MPNs and their caregivers.

What GDPR and the Health Research Regulations (HRRs) mean for Ireland: a research perspective.

BACKGROUND: Irish Health Research Regulations (HRRs) were introduced following the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. The HRRs described specific supplementary regulatory requirements for research regarding governance, processes and procedure that impact on several facets of research. The numerous problems that the HRRs and particularly "explicit consent" inadvertently created were presented under the auspices of the Irish Academy of Medical Sciences (IAMS) on November 25, 2019, at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. AIMS: The objective of this review was to obtain feedback and to examine the impact of GDPR and the HRRs on health research in Ireland in order to determine whether the preliminary feedback, presented at the IAMS meetings, was reflected at a national level. METHODS: Individuals from the research community were invited to provide feedback on the impact, if any, of the HRRs on health research. Retrospective patient recruitment and consent outside a hospital setting for a multi-institutional Breast Predict study (funded by the Irish Cancer Society) were also analysed. RESULTS: Feedback replicated the issues presented at the IAMS with additional concerns identified. Only 20% of the original target population (n = 1987) could be included in the Breast Predict study. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that the HRRs have had a significantly negative impact on health research in Ireland. Urgent meaningful engagement between patient advocate groups, the research community and legislators would help ameliorate these impacts.

What GDPR and the Health Research Regulations (HRRs) mean for Ireland: "explicit consent"-a legal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Irish Health Research Regulations (HRRs) were introduced following the commencement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. The HRRs set out supplementary regulatory requirements for research. A legal analysis presented under the auspices of the Irish Academy of Medical Sciences (IAMS) on April 8 and November 25, 2019 at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland welcomed the introduction of GDPR and the HRRs. The analysis found the GDPR "explicit consent" introduced by the HRRs is problematic. A call was made to regulate informed consent in line with the common law as an achievable alternative safeguard, bringing Ireland in line with other EU Member States. AIMS: This article aims to review academic papers, legal opinion, EU opinion and advice and data protection law in relation to research and explicit consent, in order to examine the legal burden of GDPR and the HRRs on health research in Ireland and to determine whether the analysis presented at the IAMS meetings is reflected more widely in legal text. METHODS: Legal literature review of academic papers, legal opinion, EU opinion and advice and data protection legislation. RESULTS: The legal literature review overwhelmingly supports the concerns raised. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the GDPR explicit consent requirement of the HRRs is having had a significantly negative and far-reaching impact on the conduct of health research in Ireland. Urgent review of the HRRs and meaningful engagement between the health research community and legislators in healthcare is required.

Harmonising the human biobanking consent process: an Irish experience.

Biobanks are repositories of human biological samples and data. They are an important component of clinical research in many disease areas and often represent the first step toward innovative treatments. For biobanks to operate, researchers need human participants to give their samples and associated health data. In Ireland, research participants must provide their freely given informed consent for their samples and data to be taken and used for research purposes. Biobank staff are responsible for communicating the relevant information to participants prior to obtaining their consent, and this communication process is supported by documentation in the form of Participant Information Leaflets and Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs). PILs/ICFs should be concise, intelligible, and contain relevant information. While not a substitute for layperson and research staff discussions, PILs and ICFs ensure that a layperson has enough information to make an informed choice to participate or not. However, PILs/ICFs are often lengthy, contain technical language and can be complicated and onerous for a layperson to read. The introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the related Irish Health Research Regulation (HRR) presented additional challenges to the Irish biobank community. In May 2019, the National Biobanking Working Group (NBWG) was established in Ireland. It consists of members from diverse research backgrounds located in universities, hospitals and research centres across Ireland and a public/patient partner. The NBWG aimed to develop a suite of resources for health research biobanks via robust and meaningful patient engagement, which are accessible, GDPR/HRR-compliant and could be used nationally, including a PIL/ICF template. This open letter describes the process whereby this national biobank PIL/ICF template was produced. The development of this template included review by the Patient Voice in Cancer Research, led by Professor Amanda McCann at University College Dublin and the Health Research Data Protection Network.

Effect of altering alarm settings: a randomized controlled study.

UNLABELLED: Medical alarm signals are important for alerting clinicians to life-threatening conditions, but the high rate of false alarms can be problematic. Reduction in alarm signals may lead to increased staff responsiveness to alarms and create a quieter environment for patients. The effect of these changes on patient outcomes is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, prospective, randomized, controlled trial in the cardiac care unit (CCU) to test a study protocol and data collection instruments and to examine the differences in alarms between usual care and altered settings. Subjects were randomized daily to either standard or altered CCU alarm settings. Secondary outcomes included the number of clinically significant events (CSEs) detected, event-triggered interventions (ETIs), frequency of alarms per monitored bed, and patient complications. RESULTS: Over the two-week study time frame, 22 unique patients were enrolled. There were 1,710 alarms over 163 hours of monitoring in the standard group and 1,165 alarms over 169 hours in the study group (P < 0.001). There were more CSEs detected (14 vs. 3) and ETIs (12 vs. 2) in the study group, but sample size was too small to determine efficacy. No cardiac arrests or adverse patient outcomes were observed in either group. All patients were discharged from the hospital. Study protocol and outcomes were feasible and lessons were learned. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated feasibility of a study protocol for conducting a randomized controlled trial to evaluate CSEs, ETIs, frequency of alarms, and adverse patient outcomes when altering default alarm settings. A longer study can be performed using a similar study design.