Lesley Dunleavy, Ruth Board, Seamus Coyle, Andrew Dickman, John Ellershaw, Amy Gadoud, Jaime Halvorsen, Nick Hulbert-Williams, Liz Lightbody, Stephen Mason, Amara Callistus Nwosu, Andrea Partridge, Sheila Payne, Nancy Preston, Brooke Swash, Vanessa Taylor, Catherine Walshe
{"title":"为什么在英国进行低风险人员研究需要组织批准?程序、障碍和负担。","authors":"Lesley Dunleavy, Ruth Board, Seamus Coyle, Andrew Dickman, John Ellershaw, Amy Gadoud, Jaime Halvorsen, Nick Hulbert-Williams, Liz Lightbody, Stephen Mason, Amara Callistus Nwosu, Andrea Partridge, Sheila Payne, Nancy Preston, Brooke Swash, Vanessa Taylor, Catherine Walshe","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health care staff should be given the opportunity to participate in research, but recruiting clinicians via their employing organisation is not always straightforward or quick in the UK. Unlike many countries outside the UK, very low-risk survey, interview or focus group studies can be subject to some of the same governance approval procedures as interventional studies. An exemplar study carried out by the NIHR funded Palliative Care Research Partnership North West Coast is used to highlight the challenges still faced by researchers and health care organisations when setting up a low-risk staff study across multiple NHS and non-NHS sites.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A study database was created and information was collected on the first point of contact with the clinical site, Health Research Authority (HRA) and local organisational approval times, time from trust or hospice agreement to the first survey participant recruited and overall site survey recruitment numbers. Descriptive statistics (median, range) were used to analyse these data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across participating NHS trusts, it took a median of 147.5 days (range 99-195) from initial contact with the local collaborator to recruitment of the first survey participant and hospice sites mirrored these lengthy timescales (median 142 days, range 110-202). The lengthiest delays in the HRA approval process were the period between asking NHS trusts to assess whether they had capacity and capability to support the research and them granting local agreement. Local approval times varied between trusts and settings which may indicate organisations are applying national complex guidance differently.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is the potential for HRA processes to use more NHS resources than the research study itself when recruiting to a low-risk staff study across multiple organisations. There is a need to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and bureaucracy to give clinicians and research staff more opportunities to participate in research, and to free up NHS R&D departments, research nurses and clinicians to focus on more demanding and patient focused research studies. Hospices need standardised guidance on how to assess the risk of being involved in low-risk research without adopting the unnecessarily complex systems that are currently used within the NHS.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"1408"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566500/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens.\",\"authors\":\"Lesley Dunleavy, Ruth Board, Seamus Coyle, Andrew Dickman, John Ellershaw, Amy Gadoud, Jaime Halvorsen, Nick Hulbert-Williams, Liz Lightbody, Stephen Mason, Amara Callistus Nwosu, Andrea Partridge, Sheila Payne, Nancy Preston, Brooke Swash, Vanessa Taylor, Catherine Walshe\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health care staff should be given the opportunity to participate in research, but recruiting clinicians via their employing organisation is not always straightforward or quick in the UK. Unlike many countries outside the UK, very low-risk survey, interview or focus group studies can be subject to some of the same governance approval procedures as interventional studies. An exemplar study carried out by the NIHR funded Palliative Care Research Partnership North West Coast is used to highlight the challenges still faced by researchers and health care organisations when setting up a low-risk staff study across multiple NHS and non-NHS sites.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A study database was created and information was collected on the first point of contact with the clinical site, Health Research Authority (HRA) and local organisational approval times, time from trust or hospice agreement to the first survey participant recruited and overall site survey recruitment numbers. Descriptive statistics (median, range) were used to analyse these data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across participating NHS trusts, it took a median of 147.5 days (range 99-195) from initial contact with the local collaborator to recruitment of the first survey participant and hospice sites mirrored these lengthy timescales (median 142 days, range 110-202). The lengthiest delays in the HRA approval process were the period between asking NHS trusts to assess whether they had capacity and capability to support the research and them granting local agreement. Local approval times varied between trusts and settings which may indicate organisations are applying national complex guidance differently.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is the potential for HRA processes to use more NHS resources than the research study itself when recruiting to a low-risk staff study across multiple organisations. There is a need to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and bureaucracy to give clinicians and research staff more opportunities to participate in research, and to free up NHS R&D departments, research nurses and clinicians to focus on more demanding and patient focused research studies. Hospices need standardised guidance on how to assess the risk of being involved in low-risk research without adopting the unnecessarily complex systems that are currently used within the NHS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"1408\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566500/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens.
Background: Health care staff should be given the opportunity to participate in research, but recruiting clinicians via their employing organisation is not always straightforward or quick in the UK. Unlike many countries outside the UK, very low-risk survey, interview or focus group studies can be subject to some of the same governance approval procedures as interventional studies. An exemplar study carried out by the NIHR funded Palliative Care Research Partnership North West Coast is used to highlight the challenges still faced by researchers and health care organisations when setting up a low-risk staff study across multiple NHS and non-NHS sites.
Methods: A study database was created and information was collected on the first point of contact with the clinical site, Health Research Authority (HRA) and local organisational approval times, time from trust or hospice agreement to the first survey participant recruited and overall site survey recruitment numbers. Descriptive statistics (median, range) were used to analyse these data.
Results: Across participating NHS trusts, it took a median of 147.5 days (range 99-195) from initial contact with the local collaborator to recruitment of the first survey participant and hospice sites mirrored these lengthy timescales (median 142 days, range 110-202). The lengthiest delays in the HRA approval process were the period between asking NHS trusts to assess whether they had capacity and capability to support the research and them granting local agreement. Local approval times varied between trusts and settings which may indicate organisations are applying national complex guidance differently.
Conclusions: There is the potential for HRA processes to use more NHS resources than the research study itself when recruiting to a low-risk staff study across multiple organisations. There is a need to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and bureaucracy to give clinicians and research staff more opportunities to participate in research, and to free up NHS R&D departments, research nurses and clinicians to focus on more demanding and patient focused research studies. Hospices need standardised guidance on how to assess the risk of being involved in low-risk research without adopting the unnecessarily complex systems that are currently used within the NHS.
期刊介绍:
BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.