Free Lesson Preview
This is just the beginning
The full CRC track covers 8 courses from study start-up to close-out — the skills sponsors actually look for.
View enrollment optionsAlready enrolled? Sign in
Free GCP training
Professional tracks
Clinical Research Coordinator
Full course · Informed Consent in Practice
Free Lesson Preview
The full CRC track covers 8 courses from study start-up to close-out — the skills sponsors actually look for.
View enrollment optionsAlready enrolled? Sign in
Teaches CRCs to identify which protocol amendments require reconsent for enrolled participants, distinguish scope of applicability, interpret IRB determination letters, and apply a decision framework for borderline cases.
A protocol amendment arrives. It is 47 pages of tracked changes -- red text, strikethroughs, margin notes from the medical monitor, a cover letter from the sponsor summarizing the revisions. You skim the summary: an MRI scan has been added at week 24, the visit window for the month-six assessment has been widened from plus-or-minus three days to plus-or-minus seven, a statistical analysis plan revision changes the primary endpoint analysis from per-protocol to intent-to-treat, and the participant compensation table now reflects a higher per-visit reimbursement.
The question that confronts you -- the question this entire lesson exists to answer -- is deceptively simple: which of these changes require you to go back to every enrolled participant and obtain new consent?
Get this wrong in one direction, and you waste weeks scheduling unnecessary reconsent visits, pulling participants away from their lives for a conversation about a change that does not affect them. Get it wrong in the other direction -- the dangerous direction -- and participants continue in a trial under consent that no longer accurately describes what is happening to them. Their autonomy has been compromised. Their consent is, in a meaningful sense, invalid.
This is not a theoretical concern. I have reviewed audit findings where sites failed to reconsent participants after the addition of a liver biopsy to a protocol, and I have seen equally troubling findings where sites reconsented for every trivial correction, eroding participant trust through sheer volume of paperwork. Neither extreme serves participants well. What serves participants is judgment -- informed, structured, defensible judgment about which changes matter.
This lesson gives you the framework for that judgment.
What you will learn4 objectives
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
Progress saves itself — finish reading and this lesson completes