Variation in Local Institutional Review Board Evaluations of a Multicenter Patient Safety Study

&NA; Several highly visible quality improvement (QI) projects led to controversy over their ethical oversight, attracting attention from institutional review boards (IRBs) and the Office for Human Research Protection. While QI research has increased dramatically, there is limited empirical evidence regarding how multiple IRBs review the same study. This paper describes the variations in local IRB reviews for the same a multicenter QI study. The study, entitled “Locating Errors through Networked Surveillance”, used multiple data collection methods to identify patient safety risks in cardiovascular operating room services. This study involved 2‐day site visits to 5 hospitals by the research team to observe cardiac surgery procedures and interview staff regarding clinical practice and hazards. Surveys were self‐administered. The IRB process varied widely across the 5 hospitals. Reviews ranged from full committee review and approval with verbal consent required from patients and operating room staff, to an IRB determining the study exempt from review and participant consent. The time to IRB approval ranged from 6 weeks to 6 months. This variation suggests there is wide interpretation of the Federal regulations put in place to guide IRBs. The adoption of uniformity would not only reduce inefficiencies but also attenuate the perceived arbitrary nature of current IRB review processes that often inappropriately influence hypothesis‐generation and study design.

[1]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Quality improvement in general practice: enabling general practitioners to judge ethical dilemmas , 2010, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[2]  George R. Kim,et al.  The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists' FOCUS Initiative: Locating Errors Through Networked Surveillance (LENS) Project Vision , 2010, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[3]  R. Ness Influence of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on health research. , 2007, JAMA.

[4]  Theodore Speroff,et al.  The Ethics of Using Quality Improvement Methods in Health Care , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  P. Pronovost,et al.  An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  C. Marano,et al.  To err is human. Building a safer health system , 2005, Italian Journal of Public Health.

[7]  B. Vellas,et al.  The practice of obtaining approval from medical research ethics committees: a comparison within 12 European countries for a descriptive study on acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer's dementia , 2005, European journal of neurology.

[8]  J. Lynn When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge , 2004, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[9]  Ada Hamosh,et al.  Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. , 2003, JAMA.

[10]  B. Lo,et al.  Oversight of quality improvement: focusing on benefits and risks. , 2003, Archives of internal medicine.

[11]  E. Rasch,et al.  Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research. , 2002, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[12]  Suzanne Austin Boren,et al.  A Guide for Developing Patient Safety Curricula for Undergraduate Medical Education , 2002, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[13]  Warburton Sw,et al.  Should patients in quality-improvement activities have the same protections as participants in research studies? , 2000, JAMA.

[14]  D. Casarett,et al.  Should patients in quality-improvement activities have the same protections as participants in research studies? , 2000, JAMA.

[15]  A. Wall,et al.  Book ReviewTo Err is Human: building a safer health system Kohn L T Corrigan J M Donaldson M S Washington DC USA: Institute of Medicine/National Academy Press ISBN 0 309 06837 1 $34.95 , 2000 .

[16]  J. Enders Infectious Diseases Society of America , 1969 .

[17]  Grinding to a halt: the effects of the increasing regulatory burden on research and quality improvement efforts. , 2009, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[18]  J. Lynn,et al.  The ethics of using QI methods to improve health care quality and safety. , 2006, The Hastings Center report.

[19]  William R. Hendee,et al.  To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System , 2001 .