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

Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens

BACKGROUND

Health care staff should be given the opportunity to participate in research, but recruiting clinicians via their employing organisation is not always straightforward or quick in the UK. Unlike many countries outside the UK, very low-risk survey, interview or focus group studies can be subject to some of the same governance approval procedures as interventional studies. An exemplar study carried out by the NIHR funded Palliative Care Research Partnership North West Coast is used to highlight the challenges still faced by researchers and health care organisations when setting up a low-risk staff study across multiple NHS and non-NHS sites.

METHODS

A study database was created and information was collected on the first point of contact with the clinical site, Health Research Authority (HRA) and local organisational approval times, time from trust or hospice agreement to the first survey participant recruited and overall site survey recruitment numbers. Descriptive statistics (median, range) were used to analyse these data.

RESULTS

Across participating NHS trusts, it took a median of 147.5 days (range 99-195) from initial contact with the local collaborator to recruitment of the first survey participant and hospice sites mirrored these lengthy timescales (median 142 days, range 110-202). The lengthiest delays in the HRA approval process were the period between asking NHS trusts to assess whether they had capacity and capability to support the research and them granting local agreement. Local approval times varied between trusts and settings which may indicate organisations are applying national complex guidance differently.

CONCLUSIONS

There is the potential for HRA processes to use more NHS resources than the research study itself when recruiting to a low-risk staff study across multiple organisations. There is a need to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and bureaucracy to give clinicians and research staff more opportunities to participate in research, and to free up NHS R&D departments, research nurses and clinicians to focus on more demanding and patient focused research studies. Hospices need standardised guidance on how to assess the risk of being involved in low-risk research without adopting the unnecessarily complex systems that are currently used within the NHS.

The consequences of the new European reclassification of non-invasive brain stimulation devices and the medical device regulations pose an existential threat to research and treatment: An invited opinion paper

A significant amount of European basic and clinical neuroscience research includes the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), mainly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Two recent changes in the EU regulations, the introduction of the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) (2017/745) and the Annex XVI have caused significant problems and confusions in the brain stimulation field. The negative consequences of the MDR for non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) have been largely overlooked and until today, have not been consequently addressed by National Competent Authorities, local ethical committees, politicians and by the scientific communities. In addition, a rushed bureaucratic decision led to seemingly wrong classification of NIBS products without an intended medical purpose into the same risk group III as invasive stimulators. Overregulation is detrimental for any research and for future developments, therefore researchers, clinicians, industry, patient representatives and an ethicist were invited to contribute to this document with the aim of starting a constructive dialogue and enacting positive changes in the regulatory environment.

Online survey exploring researcher experiences of research funding processes in the UK: the effort and burden of applying for funding and fulfilling reporting requirements

OBJECTIVE

To explore researchers' experiences of funding processes, the effort and burden involved in applying for funding, obtaining funding and/or fulfilling reporting requirements with a UK health and social care research funder.

DESIGN/SETTING

A cross-sectional online survey study with open (free-text) and closed questions (August to November 2021).

PARTICIPANTS

Researchers with experience of applying for/obtaining funding and/or experience of fulfilling reporting requirements for UK health and social care research funded between January 2018 and June 2021.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 182 researchers, of which 176 had experience with applying for/obtaining funding, and 143 had experience with fulfilling reporting requirements during the timeframe. The majority of the 176 respondents (58%) completed between 7 and 13 key processes in order to submit an application and 69% felt that it was critically important to undertake these key processes. Respondents (n=143) reported submitting an average of 17 reports as part of research monitoring to a range of organisations (eg, funders, Higher Education Institutions). However, only 33% of respondents felt it was critically important to provide the requested reporting information to the different organisations. Thematic analysis of free-text questions on application and reporting identified themes relating to process inefficiencies including streamlining and alignment of systems, lack of understanding of processes including a need for improved communication and feedback from organisations with clear explanations about what information is needed, when and why, the support required by respondents and the time, effort and impact on workload and well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this study, we were able to identify funding processes that are considered by some to be effortful, but necessary, as well as those that were perceived as unnecessary, complex and repetitive, and may waste some researchers time and effort and impact on well-being. Possible solutions to increase efficiency and enhance value in these processes were identified.