在加拿大一个省级卫生机构开展伦理需求评估,为研究合规途径导航工具提供信息。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-11 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2023.2233419
Elaine Fung, Elodie Portales-Casamar, Priyanka Kadam, Holly Longstaff
{"title":"在加拿大一个省级卫生机构开展伦理需求评估,为研究合规途径导航工具提供信息。","authors":"Elaine Fung, Elodie Portales-Casamar, Priyanka Kadam, Holly Longstaff","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2233419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Practitioners aim to improve healthcare systems and clinical care through a variety of activities as part of a learning healthcare system. Yet the distinction between projects requiring Research Ethics Board (REB) approval or not is becoming increasingly blurred, making it difficult for researchers and others to classify projects and then navigate the required compliance pathway appropriately. To address this challenge, the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) of British Columbia (BC) created a decision tool called the \"PHSA Project Sorter Tool\" to serve its diverse community while also meeting the unique needs of the BC regulatory and policy environment. The goal of the tool was to standardize and clarify organizational project review and ensure project leads were referred to the appropriate review body or service provider within the PHSA in the most efficient manner possible. In this paper, we describe the ethics needs assessment that was conducted to inform the tool and the results of our ongoing evaluation of the tool since it was launched in January, 2020. Our project shows that this simple tool can reduce burdens on staff and provide clarity to users by standardizing processes and terms and directing users to appropriate internal resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1107-1127"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deploying an ethics needs assessment to inform a navigational tool for research compliance pathways at a provincial Canadian health authority.\",\"authors\":\"Elaine Fung, Elodie Portales-Casamar, Priyanka Kadam, Holly Longstaff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2023.2233419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Practitioners aim to improve healthcare systems and clinical care through a variety of activities as part of a learning healthcare system. Yet the distinction between projects requiring Research Ethics Board (REB) approval or not is becoming increasingly blurred, making it difficult for researchers and others to classify projects and then navigate the required compliance pathway appropriately. To address this challenge, the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) of British Columbia (BC) created a decision tool called the \\\"PHSA Project Sorter Tool\\\" to serve its diverse community while also meeting the unique needs of the BC regulatory and policy environment. The goal of the tool was to standardize and clarify organizational project review and ensure project leads were referred to the appropriate review body or service provider within the PHSA in the most efficient manner possible. In this paper, we describe the ethics needs assessment that was conducted to inform the tool and the results of our ongoing evaluation of the tool since it was launched in January, 2020. Our project shows that this simple tool can reduce burdens on staff and provide clarity to users by standardizing processes and terms and directing users to appropriate internal resources.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1107-1127\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2233419\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2233419","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为学习型医疗保健系统的一部分,从业人员旨在通过各种活动改善医疗保健系统和临床护理。然而,需要研究伦理委员会 (REB) 批准的项目与不需要研究伦理委员会 (REB) 批准的项目之间的区别正变得越来越模糊,这使得研究人员和其他人员很难对项目进行分类,然后适当地选择所需的合规途径。为了应对这一挑战,不列颠哥伦比亚省(BC)的省卫生服务管理局(PHSA)创建了一个名为 "PHSA 项目分类工具 "的决策工具,以服务于其多样化的社区,同时满足不列颠哥伦比亚省监管和政策环境的独特需求。该工具的目标是规范和明确组织项目审查,确保以最高效的方式将项目线索移交给 PHSA 内部适当的审查机构或服务提供商。在本文中,我们介绍了为了解该工具而进行的伦理需求评估,以及自 2020 年 1 月推出以来我们对该工具的持续评估结果。我们的项目表明,这一简单的工具可以减轻工作人员的负担,并通过标准化流程和术语以及引导用户使用适当的内部资源,为用户提供清晰的信息。
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
Deploying an ethics needs assessment to inform a navigational tool for research compliance pathways at a provincial Canadian health authority.

Practitioners aim to improve healthcare systems and clinical care through a variety of activities as part of a learning healthcare system. Yet the distinction between projects requiring Research Ethics Board (REB) approval or not is becoming increasingly blurred, making it difficult for researchers and others to classify projects and then navigate the required compliance pathway appropriately. To address this challenge, the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) of British Columbia (BC) created a decision tool called the "PHSA Project Sorter Tool" to serve its diverse community while also meeting the unique needs of the BC regulatory and policy environment. The goal of the tool was to standardize and clarify organizational project review and ensure project leads were referred to the appropriate review body or service provider within the PHSA in the most efficient manner possible. In this paper, we describe the ethics needs assessment that was conducted to inform the tool and the results of our ongoing evaluation of the tool since it was launched in January, 2020. Our project shows that this simple tool can reduce burdens on staff and provide clarity to users by standardizing processes and terms and directing users to appropriate internal resources.

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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity. A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia. A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted. Citation bias, diversity, and ethics. Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics.
×
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