» Articles » PMID: 20465819

One Stop or Full Stop? The Continuing Challenges for Researchers Despite the New Streamlined NHS Research Governance Process

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2010 May 15
PMID 20465819
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Obtaining the necessary approvals and permission for clinical research requires successful negotiation of the ethical and R&D layers of the NHS. Differences in structure and governance frameworks feature between the constituent nations of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), which adds complexity to cross-national studies. Difficulties in carrying out research in the NHS in the UK due to bureaucratic and time-consuming governance processes have led to the development of a new system of application and co-ordination from 2009. This paper illustrates how this new system fails to be consistent and streamlined and is unlikely to become so unless changes are made to the implementation and management of the governance processes.

Methods: We present a case study of the research governance process at the survey stage of an investigation into the use, preferences and need for information by people making choices or decisions about health care. The method involved home-based, face-to-face interviewing in a questionnaire survey in relation to decisions about lymphoma treatment, Down's syndrome screening in pregnancy, and caring for people with dementia.

Results: Our experience of the ethics stage was very positive, noting an efficient process of application and a speedy decision, both in relation to the initial application and to subsequent substantial amendments. By contrast, the R&D stages were very slow, most with unexplained delays, but some offering contradictory advice and exhibiting a lack of clear guidance and training for NHS staff. The R&D arrangements in Scotland were far quicker and more likely to be successful than in England. Overall, the delays were so severe that substantial parts of the research could not be delivered as planned within the funding timescale.

Conclusions: If high-quality research in the NHS, particularly in England, is to be delivered in a timely and cost-effective way, R&D processes for gaining research governance approval need improvement. Attention is needed in process implementation and management, particularly in relation to staff training, as well as clarity in guidance and communication within and between organisations.

Citing Articles

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme.

Parker A, Arundel C, Clark L, Coleman E, Doherty L, Hewitt C Health Technol Assess. 2024; 28(2):1-114.

PMID: 38327177 PMC: 11017159. DOI: 10.3310/HTQW3107.


Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey.

Snooks H, Khanom A, Ballo R, Bower P, Checkland K, Ellins J BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):1119.

PMID: 37308950 PMC: 10258770. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16013-y.


Design and implementation of a large and complex trial in emergency medical services.

Robinson M, Taylor J, Brett S, Nolan J, Thomas M, Reeves B Trials. 2019; 20(1):108.

PMID: 30736841 PMC: 6368693. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3203-0.


Can an ethics officer role reduce delays in research ethics approval? A mixed-method evaluation of an improvement project.

Dixon-Woods M, Foy C, Hayden C, Salman R, Tebbutt S, Schroter S BMJ Open. 2016; 6(8):e011973.

PMID: 27580832 PMC: 5013460. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011973.


A pilot study evaluating the use of ABCD2 score in pre-hospital assessment of patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack: experience and lessons learned.

Munro S, Rodbard S, Ali K, Horsfield C, Knibb W, Holah J Exp Transl Stroke Med. 2016; 8:6.

PMID: 27547296 PMC: 4992554. DOI: 10.1186/s13231-016-0020-3.


References
1.
Elwyn G, Seagrove A, Thorne K, Cheung W . Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol. BMJ. 2005; 330(7495):847. PMC: 556088. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.330.7495.847. View

2.
Tod A, Nicolson P, Allmark P . Ethical review of health service research in the UK: implications for nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2002; 40(4):379-86. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02385.x. View

3.
Downie J, McDonald F . Revisioning the oversight of research involving humans in Canada. Health Law J. 2006; 12:159-81. View

4.
Appleton J, Caan W, Cowley S, Kendall S . Busting the bureaucracy: lessons from research governance in primary care. Community Pract. 2007; 80(2):29-32. View

5.
Hearnshaw H . Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study. BMJ. 2004; 328(7432):140-1. PMC: 314507. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7432.140. View