An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital.

Protocol deviations (PDs) may jeopardize safety, rights, and welfare of subjects and data integrity. There is scarce literature and no guidelines for Institutional Ethics Committees (IECs) to process PD reports. The PD reports submitted to IECs from Jan 2011 to August 2014 were analyzed retrospectiv...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sharmila V Jalgaonkar, Shruti S Bhide, Raakhi K Tripathi, Yashashri C Shetty, Padmaja A Marathe, Janhavi Katkar, Urmila M Thatte
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2016-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4703381?pdf=render
id doaj-683659db84684789b94e4de8b2e1b74a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-683659db84684789b94e4de8b2e1b74a2020-11-25T02:35:08ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-01111e014633410.1371/journal.pone.0146334An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital.Sharmila V JalgaonkarShruti S BhideRaakhi K TripathiYashashri C ShettyPadmaja A MaratheJanhavi KatkarUrmila M ThatteProtocol deviations (PDs) may jeopardize safety, rights, and welfare of subjects and data integrity. There is scarce literature and no guidelines for Institutional Ethics Committees (IECs) to process PD reports. The PD reports submitted to IECs from Jan 2011 to August 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. Types of studies reporting PDs, category and type of PDs, PD rate per participant, time of reporting PD since its occurrence and corrective actions stated by principal investigator (PI) for major deviations were noted. Out of 447 PDs from 73/1387 total studies received during study period, 402 were from 126 pharma studies. Investigator initiated studies and dissertations reported negligible PDs. Median number of PDs was 4 per protocol. Out of 447 PDs, 304 were related to study procedure, 87, 47 and 9 were from safety, informed consent document (ICD) and eligibility category respectively. The most common reason for PDs was incomplete ICD (22/47). Maximum study procedure related PDs were due to patient visiting outside window period (126/304). Thirty five of 87 PDs were due to missed safety assessment. The overall PD reporting rate per participant was 0.08. In 90% of reports, date of occurrence of PD was not specified. The median delay for reporting PDs after occurrence was 94 days. PDs classified as Major were 73% (323/447). The most common corrective actions stated by PI were participant counseling (85/323) and caution in future (70/323). The study findings emphasize the need for GCP training at regular interval of study team members. IEC have to be vigilant and visit sites frequently, take initiative and formulate guidelines regarding PD reporting.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4703381?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sharmila V Jalgaonkar
Shruti S Bhide
Raakhi K Tripathi
Yashashri C Shetty
Padmaja A Marathe
Janhavi Katkar
Urmila M Thatte
spellingShingle Sharmila V Jalgaonkar
Shruti S Bhide
Raakhi K Tripathi
Yashashri C Shetty
Padmaja A Marathe
Janhavi Katkar
Urmila M Thatte
An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Sharmila V Jalgaonkar
Shruti S Bhide
Raakhi K Tripathi
Yashashri C Shetty
Padmaja A Marathe
Janhavi Katkar
Urmila M Thatte
author_sort Sharmila V Jalgaonkar
title An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital.
title_short An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital.
title_full An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital.
title_fullStr An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital.
title_full_unstemmed An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital.
title_sort audit of protocol deviations submitted to an institutional ethics committee of a tertiary care hospital.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2016-01-01
description Protocol deviations (PDs) may jeopardize safety, rights, and welfare of subjects and data integrity. There is scarce literature and no guidelines for Institutional Ethics Committees (IECs) to process PD reports. The PD reports submitted to IECs from Jan 2011 to August 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. Types of studies reporting PDs, category and type of PDs, PD rate per participant, time of reporting PD since its occurrence and corrective actions stated by principal investigator (PI) for major deviations were noted. Out of 447 PDs from 73/1387 total studies received during study period, 402 were from 126 pharma studies. Investigator initiated studies and dissertations reported negligible PDs. Median number of PDs was 4 per protocol. Out of 447 PDs, 304 were related to study procedure, 87, 47 and 9 were from safety, informed consent document (ICD) and eligibility category respectively. The most common reason for PDs was incomplete ICD (22/47). Maximum study procedure related PDs were due to patient visiting outside window period (126/304). Thirty five of 87 PDs were due to missed safety assessment. The overall PD reporting rate per participant was 0.08. In 90% of reports, date of occurrence of PD was not specified. The median delay for reporting PDs after occurrence was 94 days. PDs classified as Major were 73% (323/447). The most common corrective actions stated by PI were participant counseling (85/323) and caution in future (70/323). The study findings emphasize the need for GCP training at regular interval of study team members. IEC have to be vigilant and visit sites frequently, take initiative and formulate guidelines regarding PD reporting.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4703381?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT sharmilavjalgaonkar anauditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT shrutisbhide anauditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT raakhiktripathi anauditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT yashashricshetty anauditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT padmajaamarathe anauditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT janhavikatkar anauditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT urmilamthatte anauditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT sharmilavjalgaonkar auditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT shrutisbhide auditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT raakhiktripathi auditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT yashashricshetty auditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT padmajaamarathe auditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT janhavikatkar auditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
AT urmilamthatte auditofprotocoldeviationssubmittedtoaninstitutionalethicscommitteeofatertiarycarehospital
_version_ 1724805241547784192