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。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医护人员应该有机会参与研究,但在英国,通过雇佣机构招募临床医生并不总是那么简单快捷。与英国以外的许多国家不同,风险极低的调查、访谈或焦点小组研究与介入性研究一样,需要经过一些管理审批程序。英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)资助的姑息关怀研究合作组织西北海岸开展了一项示范性研究,旨在强调研究人员和医疗机构在多个英国国家卫生研究院(NHS)和非英国国家卫生研究院(NHS)地点开展低风险人员研究时仍然面临的挑战:建立了一个研究数据库,并收集了与临床研究机构的第一个接触点、健康研究管理局(HRA)和当地组织的批准时间、从信托机构或临终关怀机构同意到首次招募调查参与者的时间以及整个研究机构的调查招募人数等信息。分析这些数据时使用了描述性统计(中位数、范围):在所有参与调查的国家医疗服务体系信托机构中,从与当地合作者初次接触到招募到第一位调查对象的时间中位数为 147.5 天(范围为 99-195),安宁疗护机构的时间也同样漫长(中位数为 142 天,范围为 110-202)。从要求国家医疗服务托管机构评估其是否有能力支持研究,到托管机构批准地方协议,这期间的HRA审批时间最长。信托机构和研究机构的地方审批时间各不相同,这可能表明各机构在应用国家复杂指南时存在差异:结论:在多个机构招募低风险人员进行研究时,HRA 流程可能会比研究本身耗费更多的 NHS 资源。有必要减少不必要的行政负担和官僚作风,为临床医生和研究人员提供更多参与研究的机会,并让 NHS 研发部门、研究护士和临床医生腾出时间,专注于要求更高和以患者为中心的研究。对于如何评估参与低风险研究的风险,临终关怀机构需要标准化的指导,而无需采用国民医疗服务体系目前使用的不必要的复杂系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Decarbonizing surgical care: a qualitative systematic review guided by the Congruence Model. Qualitative exploration of 3D printing in Swedish healthcare: perceived effects and barriers. A tailored intervention for the detection of patients with coronary heart disease and mental or cognitive comorbidities in the German primary care setting: qualitative evaluation of implementation success. Breaking barriers: a qualitative exploration of healthcare access for crack cocaine users in Limerick. Intention to use mobile text message reminders for medication adherence among hypertensive patients in North West Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1