Investigators' successful strategies for working with Institutional Review Boards

The Impact of DNP Scholarly Projects on Healthcare Organizations: A Road Map for Success

Many DNP scholarly projects occur in healthcare organizations, often taking various forms based on specific academic requirements. Projects require site mentorship, project facilitation, and institutional review board resources. This article highlights the impact of DNP scholarly projects on healthcare organizations and provides a road map for success for healthcare leaders and site mentors.

Process, Power, and Impact of the Institutional Review Board in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research

While research on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) has been conducted on issues ranging from quality, process, and effectiveness, gaps remain. Social science researchers have raised issues regarding decisions by IRBs applied to the social sciences based on biomedical research. To date, little is known about the experience of social scientists in criminology and criminal justice with IRBs and this research seeks to fill this gap. An online survey, including open- and closed-ended questions drawn from the validated IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool, was administered to members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the American Society of Criminology about their experiences with IRBs. Results revealed that researchers report experiencing challenges with their IRBs including timeline delays of their research, bias against their research, and decisions that protect legal liability rather than human subjects ethics. Recommendations for improving IRB reviews of protocols and challenges unique to criminology and criminal justice are discussed.

Planning and managing a complex multisite study in the age of technology

A 2-year long, multisite research study that evaluated cardiopulmonary resuscitation skill decay among nursing students was conducted at 10 schools of nursing across the United States. The study was conducted in two phases and required carefully timed sessions for skill performance. Multisite studies in nursing education need to be carefully planned. Time delays should be anticipated with processes and Institutional Review Board protocols across sites. All team members were trained and consistently supported during the entire study. While challenges and obstacles were identified, innovative solutions were implemented that assisted the research team to successfully complete the study. The use of new and existing technology allowed the team to surmount many of the challenges encountered in this study. The purpose of this article is to describe the logistics, processes, challenges, and lessons learned related to conducting a complex multisite study.

A study to improve communication between clinicians and patients with advanced heart failure: methods and challenges behind the working to improve discussions about defibrillator management trial

We report the challenges of the Working to Improve Discussions About Defibrillator Management trial, our novel, multicenter trial aimed at improving communication between cardiology clinicians and their patients with advanced heart failure (HF) who have implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The study objectives are (1) to increase ICD deactivation conversations, (2) to increase the number of ICDs deactivated, and (3) to improve psychological outcomes in bereaved caregivers. The unit of randomization is the hospital, the intervention is aimed at HF clinicians, and the patient and caregiver are the units of analysis. Three hospitals were randomized to usual care and three to intervention. The intervention consists of an interactive educational session, clinician reminders, and individualized feedback. We enroll patients with advanced HF and their caregivers, and then we regularly survey them to evaluate whether the intervention has improved communication between them and their HF providers. We encountered three implementation barriers. First, there were institutional review board concerns at two sites because of the palliative nature of the study. Second, we had difficulty in creating entry criteria that accurately identified an HF population at high risk of dying. Third, we had to adapt our entry criteria to the changing landscape of ventricular assist devices and cardiac transplant eligibility. Here we present our novel solutions to the difficulties we encountered. Our work has the ability to enhance conduct of future studies focusing on improving care for patients with advanced illness.

An ethics safe harbor for international genomics research?

BACKGROUND

Genomics research is becoming increasingly globally connected and collaborative, contesting traditional ethical and legal boundaries between global and local research practice. As well, global data-driven genomics research holds great promise for health discoveries. Yet, paradoxically, current research ethics review systems around the world challenge potential improvements in human health from such research and thus undermine respect for research participants. Case reports illustrate that the current system is costly, fragmented, inefficient, inadequate, and inconsistent. There is an urgent need to improve the governance system of ethics review to enable secure and seamless genomic and clinical data sharing across jurisdictions.

DISCUSSION

Building on the international privacy 'safe harbor' model that was developed following the adoption of the European Privacy Directive, we propose an international infrastructure. The goal is to create a streamlined and harmonized ethics governance system for international, data-driven genomics research projects. The proposed 'Safe Harbor Framework for International Ethics Equivalency' would consist in part of an agency supporting an International Federation for Ethics Review (IFER), formed by a voluntary agreement among countries, granting agencies, philanthropies, institutions, and healthcare, patient advocacy, and research organizations. IFER would be both a central ethics review body and also a forum for review and follow-up of policies concerning ethics norms for international genomics research projects. It would be built on five principle elements: (1) registration; (2) compliance review; (3) recognition; (4) monitoring and enforcement; and (5) public participation.

SUMMARY

A Safe Harbor Framework for International Ethics Equivalency would create many benefits for researchers, countries, and the general public, and may eventually have application beyond genomics to other areas of biomedical research that increasingly engage in secondary use of data and present only negligible risks. Among the benefits, research participants and patients would have uniform adequate protection, while researchers would be ensured expert ethics review with a reduction in cost, time, administrative hassle, and redundant regulatory hurdles. Most importantly, society would enjoy the maximization of the potential benefits of genomics research.