Process | Barriers | Facilitators |
---|---|---|
Making trial design decisions | ∙ Complexity of the legal frameworks governing trials involving adults lacking capacity ∙ Lack of access to relevant expertise in trial teams ∙ Lack of effective training and information about conducting trials with adults who lack capacity ∙ Context-specific recruitment issues (e.g. lack of consultees/legal representative in some settings, role of gatekeepers) ∙ Pressure of recruitment targets and timescales which do not take account of the additional time required to recruit adults lacking capacity ∙ Lack of resources (e.g. research nurse time) to meet the additional resources required ∙ Lack of appropriate and agreed outcome measures for participants with cognitive impairment and their proxies | ∙ Experience and familiarity with trials with adults lacking capacity to consent ∙ Availability of additional data (qualitative, feasibility) to inform the design and conduct of the trial ∙ Flexibility and use of adaptive strategies (e.g. allowing remote contact and consent from consultees and legal representatives) ∙ Feedback from funders and reviewers which recognises the importance of the inclusion of adults lacking capacity and supports their inclusion |
Navigating ethical approval | ∙ Lack of knowledge and understanding by RECs and research teams about the legal provisions for adults lacking capacity and how they are implemented in practice ∙ Differences in the legal provisions between nations (e.g. between England & Wales and Scotland) and the impact of dual applications and multiple sets of trial documents ∙ Lack of provision for conducting emergency non-CTIMP research in Scotland under AWI ∙ Inconsistency in REC reviews (both between and within RECs) and inaccuracies in advice/requirements | ∙ Having an established relationship with a REC who have previously reviewed trials involving adults who lack capacity by the research team ∙ Effective communication with RECs who are able to offer knowledgeable advice to trial teams |
Informing and supporting the participant | ∙ Complex and lengthy Participant Information Sheets that are not cognitively or linguistically accessible ∙ Lack of access to timely translation services that are appropriate for people with cognitive impairment who do not have English as a first language | ∙ Availability of accessible trial information (e.g. easy-read, pictorial, brief summary version) ∙ Involvement of family and carers to support the person with cognitive impairment to make a decision about research participation |
Assessment of capacity to consent | ∙ Requirement to conduct assess capacity remotely which is more challenging and unfamiliar ∙ Lack of access to background information held in clinical records | ∙ Seeking the views of others who are familiar with the person (e.g. family, usual carers) ∙ Access to expertise on communication and assessing capacity (e.g. Speech & Language Therapist) |
Involvement of alternative decision-maker | ∙ Reliance on care team to identify and approach family members ∙ Gatekeeping or lack of engagement from families and care team ∙ Uncertainty around the legal and ethical role of alternative decision-makers ∙ Challenging process of decision-making when the person’s wishes and preferences are unknown | ∙ Flexible consent arrangements (e.g. telephone consultation, verbal consent/agreement) ∙ Established processes for involving alternative decision-makers (e.g. prospective list of care team members able and willing to act as consultee/legal representative) |
Revisiting consent and consultation | ∙ Participant is discharged, transferred or dies before consent can be sought (e.g. deferred consent or recovered capacity) ∙ Reliance on remote contact only during a trial (e.g. postal follow-up only) | ∙ Regular communication and establishing a rapport with the participant and their care team ∙ Prospective planning for changes in capacity (e.g. prospectively obtaining family contact details, ongoing involvement of family/carer) |