a National Institutes of Health.
Am J Bioeth. 2018 Jan;18(1):52-54. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1401171.
In proposing strategies to improve access to and quality of research ethics consultation (REC) services, Porter and colleagues (2018) call for “open communication” between REC and clinical ethics consultation (CEC) services. The authors believe this proposal provides a means for addressing ethical issues occurring at the intersection of research and clinical care, as well as an opportunity for REC services to learn from quality improvement strategies of CEC services. We agree with the premises of this suggestion, yet propose that direct partnership, rather than simply open communication, between REC and CEC services can provide further benefits, including protecting patient-subjects, improving the quality of research ethics consultations, and increasing the visibility of REC services.
在提出改善研究伦理咨询（REC）服务的可及性和质量的策略时，Porter 及其同事（2018 年）呼吁 REC 和临床伦理咨询（CEC）服务之间进行“开放沟通”。作者认为，这一建议为解决研究和临床护理交叉点出现的伦理问题提供了一种手段，同时也为 REC 服务提供了一个从 CEC 服务的质量改进策略中学习的机会。我们同意这一建议的前提，但提出 REC 和 CEC 服务之间的直接合作，而不仅仅是开放沟通，可以带来更多的好处，包括保护患者主体、提高研究伦理咨询的质量，以及提高 REC 服务的可见度。
