Rosenfeld Stephen J
Freeport Research Systems, LLC, Freeport, ME.
Ochsner J. 2020 Spring;20(1):50-55. doi: 10.31486/toj.19.0075.
Satisfactory measurements of the quality of institutional review board (IRB) reviews and services continue to be elusive. For evaluative purposes, the review process can be separated into two parts: the administrative functions that support the review board and the review board's decisions. Administrative performance and board decision-making lend themselves to very different measures of quality. In particular, administrative performance is amenable to measures of process efficiency and correctness, while board decisions require a thoughtful consideration of the meaning of quality in the context of the ethical review of research. In the evaluation of administrative process, simple numbers such as mean or median time from submission to determination allow for easy comparison between IRBs, but their use means foregoing the opportunity for nuanced assessment and continuous improvement. The full distribution of measured values would indicate whether the IRB takes longer with complex studies or with certain categories of studies. An analysis of outliers would give the IRB an opportunity to assess particularly problematic areas. While such measures and analyses are not easily standardized or shared, they would be useful within the IRB, and one measure of quality would be whether an IRB had procedures in place for routinely conducting such analyses. In the evaluation of decision quality, at a minimum, IRBs should be held to a measure of the consistency of their decisions. Consistency should be used as an internal quality measure. A potential indicator of quality would be the existence of tools and processes for routinely monitoring the consistency of decisions and requiring clear rationale for inconsistencies. Ongoing quality assessment and continuous improvement in decision-making are likely to require committed resources, but such a commitment will be necessary to provide balance to the impetus to improve efficiency and administrative performance.
对机构审查委员会(IRB)审查及服务质量进行令人满意的衡量仍然难以实现。出于评估目的,审查过程可分为两部分:支持审查委员会的行政职能以及审查委员会的决策。行政绩效和委员会决策适合采用截然不同的质量衡量标准。具体而言,行政绩效适合采用流程效率和正确性的衡量标准,而委员会决策则需要在研究伦理审查的背景下对质量的含义进行深入思考。在行政流程评估中,诸如从提交到确定的平均或中位数时间等简单数字便于在不同IRB之间进行比较,但使用这些数字意味着放弃了进行细致评估和持续改进的机会。测量值的完整分布将表明IRB对复杂研究或特定类别研究的处理时间是否更长。对异常值的分析将使IRB有机会评估特别成问题的领域。虽然这些措施和分析不易标准化或共享,但在IRB内部会很有用,质量的一个衡量标准将是IRB是否有定期进行此类分析的程序。在决策质量评估中,至少,IRB应接受其决策一致性的衡量。一致性应作为内部质量衡量标准。质量的一个潜在指标将是存在用于定期监测决策一致性并要求对不一致情况提供明确理由的工具和流程。持续的质量评估和决策的持续改进可能需要投入资源,但这种投入对于平衡提高效率和行政绩效的动力是必要的。