Interhospital transfer significantly delays administration of appropriate initial antibiotics and resuscitation therapy. Future studies are needed to identify strategies of providing regional sepsis care prior to transfer to tertiary centers and to continue care pathways during the interhospital transfer process.

Objective Telemedicine networks are beginning to provide an avenue for conducting emergency medicine research, but using telemedicine to recruit participants for clinical trials has not been validated. The goal of this consent study is to determine whether patient comprehension of telemedicine-enabled research informed consent is non-inferior to standard face-to-face research informed consent. Methods A prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial was performed in a 60,000-visit Midwestern academic Emergency Department (ED) to test whether telemedicine-enabled research informed consent provided non-inferior comprehension compared with standard consent. This study was conducted as part of a parent clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of oral chlorhexidine gluconate 0.12% in preventing hospital-acquired pneumonia among adult ED patients with expected hospital admission. Prior to being recruited into the study, potential participants were randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio to consent by telemedicine versus standard face-to-face consent. Telemedicine connectivity was provided using a commercially available interface (REACH platform, Vidyo Inc., Hackensack, NJ) to an emergency physician located in another part of the ED. Comprehension of research consent (primary outcome) was measured using the modified Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC) instrument, a validated tool for measuring research informed consent comprehension. Parent trial accrual rate and qualitative survey data were secondary outcomes. Results One-hundred thirty-one patients were randomized (n = 64, telemedicine), and 101 QuIC surveys were completed. Comprehension of research informed consent using telemedicine was not inferior to face-to-face consent (QuIC scores 74.4 ± 8.1 vs. 74.4 ± 6.9 on a 100-point scale, p = 0.999). Subjective understanding of consent (p=0.194) and parent trial study accrual rates (56% vs. 69%, p = 0.142) were similar. Conclusion Telemedicine is non-inferior to face-to-face consent for delivering research informed consent, with no detected differences in comprehension and patient-reported understanding. This consent study will inform design of future telemedicine-enabled clinical trials.

No abstract