Clinical research in emergency and critical care is vital, but recruitment and consent are complex. Research may be conducted without prior consent when patients are critically ill, and interventions are time critical. Some patients may die before research participation can be discussed with relatives, leaving the bereaved unaware of their involvement. This study explored potential communication strategies for informing bereaved relatives when a patient has died following enrolment into an emergency or critical care study without prior consent.

A mixed-methods study using a telephone survey and semi-structured interviews conducted simultaneously. The survey was conducted within a National Health Service Trust in North West England with relatives of deceased study participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with bereaved relatives and research and clinical staff across the UK, and medical examiner (ME)/ME officers based in England and Wales. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Data were synthesised using a constant comparison approach.

11 bereaved relatives completed the survey. 53 individuals (21 research and clinical staff, 18 relatives and 14 MEs/officers) participated in semi-structured interviews.

Although many trials do not include a process for notifying bereaved relatives about research participation, most relatives valued the opportunity to learn about their family member’s participation, emphasising the importance of transparency and trust. However, some raised concerns over the potential burden of automatic disclosure by the ME service. Offering bereaved relatives the option to receive sensitively worded information about research involvement at an appropriate time, soon after death, was recommended.

Bereaved relatives should have the choice to be informed about research participation without prior consent. Our findings support the need for transparent and sensitive communication and will contribute to future guidance for the design and conduct of adult emergency and critical care studies.

Shared decision-making is widely advocated in policy and practice, but how it is to be applied in a high-stakes clinical decision such as major lower limb amputation due to chronic limb-threatening ischaemia or diabetic foot is unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the communication, consent, risk prediction and decision-making process in relation to major lower limb amputation.

A qualitative study (done as part of a broader mixed-methods study) using semi-structured interviews. Interview transcriptions were analysed using thematic analysis.

Vascular centres in three large National Health Service hospitals in Wales and England, UK, between 1 October 2020 and 30 September 2022.

A purposive sample of 18 patients for whom major lower limb amputation was considered as a treatment option/carried out, with interviews conducted before or within 4 months of amputation and 4–6 months after amputation. A further purposive sample of 20 healthcare professionals (including eight surgeons) involved in supporting or conducting major lower limb amputation decision-making.

Five major categories were identified that highlighted the challenges of ensuring shared decision-making associated with major lower limb amputation: (i) patients’ limited understanding, (ii) variable patient attitudes to decision-making, (iii) healthcare professionals’ perceived challenges to sharing decision-making, (iv) surgeons’ paternalism and (v) patients’ and healthcare professionals’ decisional regret/possible consequences of challenges.

Amputation is a life-changing decision for both patients and healthcare professionals, with huge consequences. Despite being considered the gold standard, our findings highlight several challenges to effective shared decision-making for major lower limb amputation. Shared decision-making training for healthcare professionals is paramount if these limitations are to be addressed and patients are to feel confident in being adequately informed about the treatment decisions that they make.

NCT04903756.