Larissa K Lloyd, Reeja Nasir, Calum Nicholson, Geoff Strange, David S Celermajer
{"title":"在澳大利亚建立国家疾病登记的障碍:CHAANZ先天性心脏病登记发展的经验教训。","authors":"Larissa K Lloyd, Reeja Nasir, Calum Nicholson, Geoff Strange, David S Celermajer","doi":"10.1071/AH23063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objectives To provide insights into the obstacles which pose challenges to the set-up of any National Registry in Australia. Methods An analysis of our experience in executing a Multi-Institutional Agreement (MIA) and obtaining ethics and governance approvals, post-award of a large Medical Research Futures Fund grant in June 2020. Results From July 2020, our timeline to an executed MIA was 283 days, despite full-time staff working towards this goal. Subsequently, after lead site ethics approval, time to site governance approvals ranged from 9 to 291 days. A total of 214 emails were sent during the MIA development and signing. There were 11-71 emails sent to individual governance offices and the number of requested points of additional information ranged from 0 to 31 queries. Conclusions There were considerable time delays in executing the initial (pre-research) stages of a National Federal Government funded Registry project which required substantial time and resources. We report a wide variation in requirements between different states and institutions. We propose several strategies which could be implemented to facilitate a more streamlined approach to research ethics and governance. This centralised approach would allow for better use of funding and facilitate better progress in medical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":55425,"journal":{"name":"Australian Health Review","volume":"47 4","pages":"410-417"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Obstacles in establishing a national disease registry in Australia: lessons from the development of the CHAANZ Congenital Heart Disease Registry.\",\"authors\":\"Larissa K Lloyd, Reeja Nasir, Calum Nicholson, Geoff Strange, David S Celermajer\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/AH23063\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objectives To provide insights into the obstacles which pose challenges to the set-up of any National Registry in Australia. Methods An analysis of our experience in executing a Multi-Institutional Agreement (MIA) and obtaining ethics and governance approvals, post-award of a large Medical Research Futures Fund grant in June 2020. Results From July 2020, our timeline to an executed MIA was 283 days, despite full-time staff working towards this goal. Subsequently, after lead site ethics approval, time to site governance approvals ranged from 9 to 291 days. A total of 214 emails were sent during the MIA development and signing. There were 11-71 emails sent to individual governance offices and the number of requested points of additional information ranged from 0 to 31 queries. Conclusions There were considerable time delays in executing the initial (pre-research) stages of a National Federal Government funded Registry project which required substantial time and resources. We report a wide variation in requirements between different states and institutions. We propose several strategies which could be implemented to facilitate a more streamlined approach to research ethics and governance. This centralised approach would allow for better use of funding and facilitate better progress in medical research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55425,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Health Review\",\"volume\":\"47 4\",\"pages\":\"410-417\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Health Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH23063\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Health Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH23063","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Obstacles in establishing a national disease registry in Australia: lessons from the development of the CHAANZ Congenital Heart Disease Registry.
Objectives To provide insights into the obstacles which pose challenges to the set-up of any National Registry in Australia. Methods An analysis of our experience in executing a Multi-Institutional Agreement (MIA) and obtaining ethics and governance approvals, post-award of a large Medical Research Futures Fund grant in June 2020. Results From July 2020, our timeline to an executed MIA was 283 days, despite full-time staff working towards this goal. Subsequently, after lead site ethics approval, time to site governance approvals ranged from 9 to 291 days. A total of 214 emails were sent during the MIA development and signing. There were 11-71 emails sent to individual governance offices and the number of requested points of additional information ranged from 0 to 31 queries. Conclusions There were considerable time delays in executing the initial (pre-research) stages of a National Federal Government funded Registry project which required substantial time and resources. We report a wide variation in requirements between different states and institutions. We propose several strategies which could be implemented to facilitate a more streamlined approach to research ethics and governance. This centralised approach would allow for better use of funding and facilitate better progress in medical research.
期刊介绍:
Australian Health Review is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes contributions on all aspects of health policy, management and governance; healthcare delivery systems; workforce; health financing; and other matters of interest to those working in health care. In addition to analyses and commentary, the journal publishes original research from practitioners – managers and clinicians – and reports of breakthrough projects that demonstrate better ways of delivering care. Australian Health Review explores major national and international health issues and questions, enabling health professionals to keep their fingers on the pulse of the nation’s health decisions and to know what the most influential commentators and decision makers are thinking.
Australian Health Review is a valuable resource for managers, policy makers and clinical staff in health organisations, including government departments, hospitals, community centres and aged-care facilities, as well as anyone with an interest in the health industry.
Australian Health Review is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association.