Patel Darpan I, Stevens Kathleen R, Puga Frank
Academic Center for Evidence-Based Practice, School of Nursing, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, MSC 7949, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Nurs Res Pract. 2013;2013:548591. doi: 10.1155/2013/548591. Epub 2013 Apr 23.
The purpose of this paper is to report the variance in institutional review board (IRB) reviews as part of the implementation of a multisite, quality improvement study through the Improvement Science Research Network (ISRN) and recommend strategies successful in procuring timely IRB approval. Using correspondence documents as data sources, the level of review was identified and time to submission, time to approval, and time to study start were analyzed. Thirteen of the 14 IRBs conducted independent reviews of the project. Twelve IRBs approved the study through expedited review while two IRBs reviewed the project at a full board meeting. Lastly, 11 of the 14 sites required documented consent. The greatest delay in approval was seen early on in the IRB process with site PIs averaging 45.1 ± 31.8 days to submit the study to the IRB. IRB approvals were relatively quick with an average of 14 ± 5.7 days to approval. The delay in study submission may be attributed to a lack of clear definitions and differing interpretations of the regulations that challenge researchers.
本文旨在报告作为通过改进科学研究网络(ISRN)实施多中心质量改进研究一部分的机构审查委员会(IRB)审查差异,并推荐成功获得IRB及时批准的策略。以信函文件作为数据源,确定审查级别,并分析提交时间、批准时间和研究开始时间。14个IRB中的13个对该项目进行了独立审查。12个IRB通过快速审查批准了该研究,而两个IRB在全体委员会会议上对该项目进行了审查。最后,14个研究地点中有11个需要书面同意。批准过程中最大的延迟出现在IRB流程的早期,各研究地点的主要研究者向IRB提交研究的平均时间为45.1±31.8天。IRB批准相对较快,平均批准时间为14±5.7天。研究提交的延迟可能归因于缺乏明确的定义以及对法规的不同解释,这给研究人员带来了挑战。