Outdated Consent Form and Questionable Legal Authorization
At Site 312, the central IRB approved informed consent form (ICF) version 4.0 on 3 March. Version 4.0 added a new risk about hypersensitivity reactions and a revised compensation statement. The site continued to use version 3.0 until 18 March, when the CRA noticed the outdated forms during a monitoring visit. Four subjects were enrolled with version 3.0 during that period. Subject 312-018, a 68-year-old with mild cognitive impairment, signed version 3.0 on 10 March. His adult daughter was present during the consent discussion and helped explain the study, but she did not sign as a legally authorized representative, and no witness signature appears on the form. The consent discussion was conducted by a sub-investigator who is not listed on the delegation log for consent. The subject has completed two study visits and received one dose of study drug. The site says the daughter 'understood everything' and that the sub-investigator is 'basically supervised by the PI'.
1. Identify the regulatory and ethical breaches and describe your immediate actions at the site.
Read the worked answer
The breaches are: use of an outdated ICF after IRB approval for four subjects; consent conducted by a sub-investigator not delegated for consent; and consent of a cognitively impaired subject without documented legal authorized representative (LAR) or witness, depending on local requirements. The daughter's presence and explanation do not substitute for legal authorization. Immediate actions: stop use of version 3.0, collect and quarantine remaining forms, and provide version 4.0 for re-consent of active subjects. For Subject 312-018, do not simply obtain a retrospective signature and declare the problem fixed. The investigator should assess capacity and determine whether the daughter meets LAR criteria under local law. If the subject lacks capacity and no valid LAR consent exists, continuing study procedures without proper authorization is ethically problematic. Notify the PI and sponsor promptly.
2. Can Subject 312-018 remain in the study, and what would proper re-consent require?
Read the worked answer
Safety comes first. The subject has received one dose and completed two visits; assess whether any study-related risk occurred and whether the subject wishes to continue. Re-consent cannot erase the prior deviation, but it can establish valid consent going forward. Proper re-consent requires the current IRB-approved version 4.0, a qualified and delegated person obtaining consent, and either the subject's own consent if he has capacity or LAR consent with documentation if he does not. If a witness is required, the witness must sign and attest. The new hypersensitivity risk and compensation statement must be explained. If the subject cannot provide valid consent and no LAR is available, discontinue study interventions and arrange safety follow-up. Data already collected may be usable only if the IRB and sponsor agree and the subject or LAR authorizes use; do not assume that.
3. What should be reported to the IRB and sponsor, and what site corrective actions would you require?
Read the worked answer
Report to the IRB and sponsor promptly under their policies, including the four subjects, enrollment dates, ICF versions, the delegation failure, and the capacity and LAR facts. The IRB will determine whether the deviation affected subjects' rights and welfare. The sponsor should require site corrective action: retrain staff on consent and delegation, update the delegation log, implement a consent checklist that includes version verification and LAR or witness requirements, and audit recent consents. Document the issue in the monitoring report and follow up to confirm that active subjects have been re-consented appropriately. Avoid blaming the daughter; focus on the system failures that allowed an outdated form and an undelegated consent discussion.