The ethics of proximity: Enrolling patients in emergency department hallway beds for suicide research.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1111/acem.15107
Barton W Palmer, Sarah A Arias, Denise R Dunlap, Gwyneth E Gould, Mhd Basheer Rahmoun, Edwin D Boudreaux, Camille Nebeker
{"title":"The ethics of proximity: Enrolling patients in emergency department hallway beds for suicide research.","authors":"Barton W Palmer, Sarah A Arias, Denise R Dunlap, Gwyneth E Gould, Mhd Basheer Rahmoun, Edwin D Boudreaux, Camille Nebeker","doi":"10.1111/acem.15107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States. Prior research suggests that 10% of people who died by suicide received some form of emergency department (ED) treatment in the 2 months preceding death. The risk of attempted suicide is high during transition back to the community after discharge from the ED, so this is an important opportunity to develop effective empirically validated prevention methods. However, the physical layout and crowded nature of most contemporary EDs, resulting in high rates of \"hallway bed\" assignments, presents some ethical challenges to conducting the requisite behavioral health research in ED settings.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>In this report, we illustrate the clinical/research ethics controversy through the example of a specific ED-based suicide prevention research protocol, in which the proposed hallway bed recruitment was initially rejected by the institutional review board (IRB) based on concerns about privacy, data confidentiality, and related considerations. Through a consultation process that involved the IRB representatives, the research team (including ethicists), and ED personnel, along with the collection of data to evaluate the risk of compromised confidentiality in hallway bed settings, a viable and ethically grounded approach was reached.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This example illustrates the ethical considerations when enrolling patients who occupy a hallway bed into research and the value of a collaborative/problem solving focused dialogue between investigators, ethicists, and IRB personnel.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"454-462"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15107","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States. Prior research suggests that 10% of people who died by suicide received some form of emergency department (ED) treatment in the 2 months preceding death. The risk of attempted suicide is high during transition back to the community after discharge from the ED, so this is an important opportunity to develop effective empirically validated prevention methods. However, the physical layout and crowded nature of most contemporary EDs, resulting in high rates of "hallway bed" assignments, presents some ethical challenges to conducting the requisite behavioral health research in ED settings.

Methods and results: In this report, we illustrate the clinical/research ethics controversy through the example of a specific ED-based suicide prevention research protocol, in which the proposed hallway bed recruitment was initially rejected by the institutional review board (IRB) based on concerns about privacy, data confidentiality, and related considerations. Through a consultation process that involved the IRB representatives, the research team (including ethicists), and ED personnel, along with the collection of data to evaluate the risk of compromised confidentiality in hallway bed settings, a viable and ethically grounded approach was reached.

Conclusions: This example illustrates the ethical considerations when enrolling patients who occupy a hallway bed into research and the value of a collaborative/problem solving focused dialogue between investigators, ethicists, and IRB personnel.

接近的伦理:在急诊科走廊床登记病人进行自杀研究。
背景:自杀是美国第十大死因。先前的研究表明,10%的自杀身亡者在死前2个月内接受过某种形式的急诊治疗。从急诊科出院后回到社区的过程中自杀未遂的风险很高,因此这是开发有效的经验验证的预防方法的重要机会。然而,大多数现代急诊科的物理布局和拥挤的性质,导致“走廊床”分配的高比例,对在急诊科环境中进行必要的行为健康研究提出了一些伦理挑战。方法和结果:在本报告中,我们通过一个特定的基于edc的自杀预防研究方案的例子来说明临床/研究伦理争议,在该方案中,机构审查委员会(IRB)基于对隐私、数据保密性和相关考虑的担忧,最初拒绝了走廊床招募的提议。通过与IRB代表、研究小组(包括伦理学家)和ED人员的协商过程,以及收集数据以评估走廊床设置的机密性受损风险,达成了一项可行且符合伦理的方法。结论:这个例子说明了在招募占用走廊床的患者进行研究时的伦理考虑,以及研究者、伦理学家和IRB人员之间协作/解决问题的重点对话的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信