Tags:
create new tag
, view all tags, tagging instructions
Return to Browse by

Return to RCR Case Studies

Please Comment on the Teaching Quality of the CASE

 

Please rate the CASE:

  • 5 stars = highest rating
  • 1 star = lowest rating
  • SCORE = average of all votes

Graph Rating
Score: 0, My vote: 0, Total votes: 0

EthicsCaseStudyForm edit

Title First poke, then hope…
Long Title First poke, then hope…
Contributor/Contact John Banja, PhD? (jbanja@emory.edu)
Contributor Details John Banja, PhD?
Director, Section on Ethics in Research
Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322
CTSA Emory
Case Study Provided I'm a pediatric oncologist who inherited a research project from a colleague. The project involved a one-time phlebotomy draw of 2 to 4 milliliters of blood from a pediatric population aged 3 to 21 years. These research participants are recruited from the regular patient population of our clinic who come for routine blood draws on their medical visits.

The problem we encountered involved the work flow of our clinic. Before our patients arrived, I would review the list of who is coming in that day for regular clinic visits and decide if the patient was eligible for the blood study research project. Very frequently, however, and before I would see a newly arrived patient, a Tech would weigh the patient and draw blood per his or her routine visit. I usually had a very hard time catching the patient before the Tech did the blood draw, so I regularly found myself asking the patient and his or her family member for permission to be enrolled in the study that would then require the unpleasantness of a second venipuncture. Even when I did get to the patient before the Tech did, the informed consent conversation would be rushed and they would have to decide quickly if we could draw some extra blood.

It then occurred to us that if we would simply draw an additional 2-4 milliliters of blood at the time of the Tech's routine blood draw, these problems would be solved. Once the blood is drawn and I subsequently see the patient, I could explain to the patient and his or her family member that we would use some of the blood that had just been taken. If they refused participation, we just wouldn’t use their blood in the study. This approach seemed much kinder to the patient in precluding the need for a second venipuncture; the patient and his or her family would not be delayed any further; and having already secured their blood, we thought it more likely that patients would consent to participating. The strategy seemed to present a clear win-win situation.
Does it?
Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership Topics No Data acquisition_management_sharing and ownership Topics
Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities Topics No mentor and trainee responsibilities topics
Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship Topics No publication practices and responsible authorship topics
Peer Review Topics No peer review topics
Collaborative Science Topics No collaborative science topics
Research Misconduct Topics
Factors that contribute to scientific misconduct
Conflicts of Interest, Law and Policy Topics No conflicts of interest_law_and policy topics
Human Subjects Human subjects research
Citation

URL http://www.actsi.org/areas/erks/ethics/index.html
RCR Keyword Research Misconduct
Other RCR Keywords Autonomous; Blood Draws; Clinic; Draw Blood; Enrollment Strategy; Family; Informed Consent; Patient; Pediatric Oncologist; Physician-researcher; Pressure to Recruit; Research Project; Routine Visit
Type of Case

Source for Topic Areas Du Bois, J., & Dueker, J. (2009). Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report. Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49-70.
References

Other

Topic revision: r1 - 28 Oct 2011 - 16:06:45 - DebieSchilling
 
Copyright &© by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding CTSPedia? Send feedback