EMS PROVIDERS AND EXCEPTION FROM INFORMED CONSENT RESEARCH: BENEFITS, ETHICS, AND COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
EMS PROVIDERS AND EXCEPTION FROM INFORMED CONSENT RESEARCH: BENEFITS, ETHICS, AND COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
复制标题
DOI：
10.3109/10903127.2012.702189
复制
发表时间：
2012-10-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Ornato, Joseph P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ripley, Elizabeth;Ramsey, Cornelia;Ornato, Joseph P.
背景。随着对紧急医疗服务（EMS）相关研究的关注和动机不断增长，特别是知情同意（EFIC）研究的例外，了解积极参与研究的EMS提供者的想法、信念和经验非常重要。目标。我们探讨了EMS提供者对院前急救研究，特别是EFIC研究的态度、信念和经验。方法。采用定性设计，对24名参与者进行了访谈，包括在参与EMS的里士满救护车管理局（Richmond Ambulance Authority）工作的全国注册护理人员和弗吉尼亚州认证的紧急医疗技术人员。在我们采访的时候，EMS机构正在参与EFIC试验。对转录的访谈数据进行编码和主题分析。研究结果被提交给EMS机构进行验证。结果。总体而言，院前急救研究似乎得到了支持。与会者认为有必要进行研究以促进EMS领域的发展。患者护理的改善被认为是最重要的好处之一。确定了一些道德考虑因素：个人风险与公共利益和同意。在我们的研究中，EMS提供者在整个社区咨询和公开披露过程中都愿意与EMS研究人员合作。结论。在我们的研究中，EMS提供者重视研究并愿意参与研究。对研究的支持与对提供者在研究过程中的作用的关注和挑战相平衡。
Background. As attention to, and motivation for, emergency medical services (EMS)-related research continues to grow, particularly exception from informed consent (EFIC) research, it is important to understand the thoughts, beliefs, and experiences of EMS providers who are actively engaged in the research. Objective. We explored the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of EMS providers regarding their involvement in prehospital emergency research, particularly EFIC research. Methods. Using a qualitative design, 24 participants were interviewed including nationally registered paramedics and Virginia-certified emergency medical technicians employed at Richmond Ambulance Authority, the participating EMS agency. At the time of our interviews, the EMS agency was involved in an EFIC trial. Transcribed interview data were coded and analyzed for themes. Findings were presented back to the EMS agency for validation. Results. Overall, there appeared to be support for prehospital emergency research. Participants viewed research as necessary for the advancement of the field of EMS. Improvement in patient care was identified as one of the most important benefits. A number of ethical considerations were identified: individual risk versus public good and consent. The EMS providers in our study were open to working with EMS researchers throughout the community consultation and public disclosure process. Conclusion. The EMS providers in our study valued research and were willing to participate in studies. Support for research was balanced with concerns and challenges regarding the role of providers in the research process.