I’ve
just posted copies of Mike
Howard’s 2010 complaint to the University of Minnesota’s Board of Regents
about Stephen Olson, as well as the reply
(nearly a year later) from Mark Rotenberg, the General Counsel for the
university. Both documents are worth
re-reading in light of the recent “corrective
action” against Jean Kenney, Olson’s study coordinator, issued by the Minnesota Board of Social Work. There is a lot to comment on here, but let me
just point out one striking disagreement between Rotenberg and the Board of Social
Work.
In his
complaint, Mike Howard argues that Olson had Kenney dispense prescription drugs
and assess their side effects even though she had no medical training. According to the Board of Social
Work, which responded to a similar complaint, Howard was absolutely right. The Board states that
Kenney was unqualified to dispense prescription drugs, monitor side-effects or
handle adverse events. In fact, her actions were in violation of the university's own policy. Yet Rotenberg claims that for Olson to delegate these medical responsibilities to Kenney was
completely appropriate and “entirely within IRB and Good Clinical Practice guidelines.”
Something’s
not right here.
You can
look at the documents for yourself – there is a lot more to see -- but here is
a summary of this particular disagreement.
In his
complaint, Howard writes:
Dr. Olson delegated the dispensing of very powerful
antipsychotic drugs to a study coordinator not licensed to dispense drugs, who
had received no prior training nor education regarding how these drugs are
taken, the severe side effects that an enrollee might experience, consequences
for stopping the drug unexpectedly and the experience to monitor whether the
study drugs are appropriate for the symptoms being treated and are having the
desired effect.
Here is
what Rotenberg wrote in reply to Howard:
Dr.
Olson was assisted in the CAFE Study by a research coordinator who had a
bachelor's degree in psychology and a master's degree in social work. As the
study coordinator, this person worked under the close supervision of Dr. Olson
as the principal investigator.
Throughout
the study, Dr. Olson was responsible for "dispensing" the medication
in his capacity as principal investigator. Under Dr. Olson's supervision, the
study coordinator merely gave the pre-packaged and marked bottles of pills to
Mr. Markingson. Mr. Markingson, upon returning to Theo House, the half-way
house where he resided, would then give the bottle of medication to the Theo
House staff who oversaw the delivery of the medication to him on a daily basis,
and helped assure that he was taking the right doses at the right time.
Dr.
Olson was responsible for the prescription of the medication under study
protocol. He discussed the medication side-effects with Mr. Markingson. He also
discussed these medications with the study coordinator and closely supervised
her activity. This is standard procedure in out-patient clinical trials and was
conducted entirely within IRB and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Neither
the IRB nor the FDA had any questions that proper procedures were followed for
dispensing of study drug.
But the Board of
Social Work had very different response:
Although Licensee had no formal medical training or experience
with respect to obtaining medical histories or handling adverse drug events,
Licensee regularly completed forms, gathered information, and performed tasks
that were beyond Licensee's competence and scope of practice as a clinical
social worker. Licensee also made numerous documentation errors in the
performance of these tasks.
Licensee dispensed legend prescription drugs without
authorization and in violation of the University's policy.
Between November 24, 2003 and April 28, 2004, Licensee completed
forms assessing the Barnes Rating Scale for drug-induced akathisia, as well as
weight, vital signs, and waistlhip/height measurements. Licensee also completed
the Simpson-Angus Abbreviated Examination of gait, arm dropping, shoulder
shaking, elbow rigidity, wrist rigidity, and tremor.
On nine occasions, beginning on December 5, 2003, Licensee completed
the Adverse Event/Medical Diagnosis form, which called for a "clinician
rating of severity" for orthostatic faintness, dry mouth, constipation,
sialorrhea, gynecomastia, galactorrhea, sex drive, sexual arousal, sexual
orgasm, incontinence/nocturia, urinary hesitancy, skin rash, hypersomnia,
weight gain, akathisia, and akinesia. On two additional occasions, Licensee
delegated the task of completing this form to a social work intern, who
Licensee was supervising.
It is no surprise
that Rotenberg did not comment on these findings in his statement
to the press about the corrective action against Kenney. I hope to post more on Rotenberg’s response
to other aspects of Howard’s complaint very soon.
What's really confusing is the fact that Olson had to qualify as "supervising" the dispensing of powerful antipsychotic drugs from afar. He was rarely present at any of Dan Markingson's study visits, so I'm not sure how he supervised Kenney. In fact, Dan asked if he was ever going to see Olson. H'mmm. Then there is the comment from Rotenberg that the group home actually monitored Dan taking his study meds and that he was taking the right dose etc. If you take a step back and realize that Dan was enrolled in what Olson described as a "real world" study, the fact that the group home guaranteed that he took his study medication actually should have voided any data collected on Dan's participation because he didn't really have the option of not taking the study drug as probably most others did. This is not how clinical trials are run.
ReplyDelete