Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For ethical approval of a multicentre study in Canada, investigators must apply separately to individual Research Ethics Boards (REBs). In principle, the protection of human research subjects is of utmost importance. However, in prac...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: von Dadelszen Peter, Ross Sue, Ezzat Hanna, Morris Tara, Liston Robert, Magee Laura A
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2010-07-01
Series:BMC Health Services Research
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/223
id doaj-e73b4b4ac636474cbf0e04127e8caf44
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e73b4b4ac636474cbf0e04127e8caf442020-11-24T20:48:13ZengBMCBMC Health Services Research1472-69632010-07-0110122310.1186/1472-6963-10-223Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspectivevon Dadelszen PeterRoss SueEzzat HannaMorris TaraListon RobertMagee Laura A<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For ethical approval of a multicentre study in Canada, investigators must apply separately to individual Research Ethics Boards (REBs). In principle, the protection of human research subjects is of utmost importance. However, in practice, the process of multicentre ethics review can be time consuming and costly, requiring duplication of effort for researchers and REBs. We used our experience with ethical review of The Canadian Perinatal Network (CPN), to gain insight into the Canadian system.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The applications forms of 16 different REBs were abstracted for a list of standardized items. The application process across sites was compared. Correspondence between the REB and the investigators was documented in order to construct a timeline to approval, identify the specific issues raised by each board, and describe how they were resolved.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Each REB had a different application form. Most (n = 9) had a two or three step application process. Overall, it took a median of 31 days (range 2-174 days) to receive an initial response from the REB. Approval took a median of 42 days (range 4-443 days). Privacy and consent were the two major issues raised. Several additional minor or administrative issues were raised which delayed approval.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>For CPN, the Canadian REB process of ethical review proved challenging. REBs acted independently and without unified application forms or submission procedures. We call for a critical examination of the ethical, privacy and institutional review processes in Canada, to determine the best way to undertake multicentre review.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/223
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author von Dadelszen Peter
Ross Sue
Ezzat Hanna
Morris Tara
Liston Robert
Magee Laura A
spellingShingle von Dadelszen Peter
Ross Sue
Ezzat Hanna
Morris Tara
Liston Robert
Magee Laura A
Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective
BMC Health Services Research
author_facet von Dadelszen Peter
Ross Sue
Ezzat Hanna
Morris Tara
Liston Robert
Magee Laura A
author_sort von Dadelszen Peter
title Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective
title_short Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective
title_full Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective
title_fullStr Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective
title_full_unstemmed Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective
title_sort ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective
publisher BMC
series BMC Health Services Research
issn 1472-6963
publishDate 2010-07-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For ethical approval of a multicentre study in Canada, investigators must apply separately to individual Research Ethics Boards (REBs). In principle, the protection of human research subjects is of utmost importance. However, in practice, the process of multicentre ethics review can be time consuming and costly, requiring duplication of effort for researchers and REBs. We used our experience with ethical review of The Canadian Perinatal Network (CPN), to gain insight into the Canadian system.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The applications forms of 16 different REBs were abstracted for a list of standardized items. The application process across sites was compared. Correspondence between the REB and the investigators was documented in order to construct a timeline to approval, identify the specific issues raised by each board, and describe how they were resolved.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Each REB had a different application form. Most (n = 9) had a two or three step application process. Overall, it took a median of 31 days (range 2-174 days) to receive an initial response from the REB. Approval took a median of 42 days (range 4-443 days). Privacy and consent were the two major issues raised. Several additional minor or administrative issues were raised which delayed approval.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>For CPN, the Canadian REB process of ethical review proved challenging. REBs acted independently and without unified application forms or submission procedures. We call for a critical examination of the ethical, privacy and institutional review processes in Canada, to determine the best way to undertake multicentre review.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/223
work_keys_str_mv AT vondadelszenpeter ethicsreviewasacomponentofinstitutionalapprovalforamulticentrecontinuousqualityimprovementprojecttheinvestigatorsperspective
AT rosssue ethicsreviewasacomponentofinstitutionalapprovalforamulticentrecontinuousqualityimprovementprojecttheinvestigatorsperspective
AT ezzathanna ethicsreviewasacomponentofinstitutionalapprovalforamulticentrecontinuousqualityimprovementprojecttheinvestigatorsperspective
AT morristara ethicsreviewasacomponentofinstitutionalapprovalforamulticentrecontinuousqualityimprovementprojecttheinvestigatorsperspective
AT listonrobert ethicsreviewasacomponentofinstitutionalapprovalforamulticentrecontinuousqualityimprovementprojecttheinvestigatorsperspective
AT mageelauraa ethicsreviewasacomponentofinstitutionalapprovalforamulticentrecontinuousqualityimprovementprojecttheinvestigatorsperspective
_version_ 1716808607118393344