Seeking ethical approval for an international study in primary care patient safety

被引:7
作者
Dovey, Susan [1 ]
Hall, Katherine [2 ]
Makeham, Meredith [3 ]
Rosser, Walter [4 ]
Kuzel, Anton [5 ]
Van Weel, Chris [6 ]
Esmail, Aneez [7 ]
Phillips, Robert [8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Otago, Dunedin Sch Med, Dept Gen Practice & Rural Hlth, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand
[2] Maori Hill Clin, Dunedin, New Zealand
[3] Univ New S Wales, Sch Publ Hlth & Community Med, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Queens Univ, Kingston, ON, Canada
[5] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Richmond, VA USA
[6] Radboud Univ Nijmegen Med Ctr, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[7] Univ Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England
[8] Amer Acad Family Phys, Robert Graham Ctr, Washington, DC USA
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
ethics; patient safety; primary care; regulation; MEDICAL ERRORS; GENERAL-PRACTICE; FAMILY-PRACTICE; TAXONOMY; AUDIT;
D O I
10.3399/bjgp11X567144
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Seeking ethics committee approval for research can be challenging even for relatively simple studies occurring in single settings. Complicating factors such as multicentre studies and/or contentious research issues can challenge review processes, and conducting such studies internationally adds a further layer of complexity. This paper draws on the experiences of the LINNAEUS Collaboration, an international group of primary care researchers, in obtaining ethics approval to conduct an international study investigating medical error in general practice in six countries. It describes the ethics review processes applied to exactly the same research protocol for a study run in Australia, Canada, England, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the US. Wide variation in ethics review responses to the research proposal occurred, from no approval being deemed necessary to the study plan narrowly avoiding rejection. The authors' experiences demonstrated that ethics committees operate in their own historical and cultural context, which can lead to radically different subjective interpretations of commonly-held ethical principles, and raised further issues such as 'what is research?'. This first LINNAEUS study started when patient safety was a particularly sensitive subject. Although it is now a respectable area of inquiry, patient safety is still a topic that can excite emotions and prejudices. The LINNAEUS Collaboration now extends to more countries and continues to pursue an international research agenda, so reflection on the influences of history, social context, and structure of each country's ethical review processes is timely.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2008, ETH PRINC MED RES IN
  • [2] Beauchamp TL., 2009, PRINCIPLES BIOMEDICA
  • [3] Beyer M, 2003, Z ALLG MED, V79, P1
  • [4] Analysing potential harm in Australian general practice: an incident-monitoring study
    Bhasale, AL
    Miller, GC
    Reid, SE
    Britt, HC
    [J]. MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 1998, 169 (02) : 73 - 76
  • [5] Coney S., 1988, The Unfortunate Experiment The Full Story Behind the Inquiry into Cervical Cancer Treatment
  • [6] Department of Health, GOV ARR NHS RES ETH
  • [7] A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice
    Dovey, SM
    Meyers, DS
    Phillips, RL
    Green, LA
    Fryer, GE
    Galliher, JM
    Kappus, J
    Grob, P
    [J]. QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2002, 11 (03): : 233 - 238
  • [8] Undue inducement in clinical research in developing countries: is it a worry?
    Emanuel, EJ
    Currie, XE
    Herman, A
    [J]. LANCET, 2005, 366 (9482) : 336 - 340
  • [9] Food and Drug Administration, BELM REP ETH PRINC G
  • [10] Goodyear-Smith F, 2001, NEW ZEAL MED J, V114, P500