Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Residents serve as both trainees and employees and can be considered potentially vulnerable research participants. This can lead to variation in the institutional review board (IRB) review. We studied sites participating in the Assessment of Professional Behaviors Study sponsored by the National Board of Medical Examiners (2009-2011). Of the 19 sites, all but one were university affiliated. IRB review varied; 2/19 did not submit to a local IRB, 4/17 (23%) were exempt, 11/17 (65%) were expedited, and 2/17 (12%) required full Board review; 12/17 (71%) required written informed consent. The interval from submission to approval was 1 to 2 months (8/17); the range was 1 to 7 months. Although most stated there were no major barriers to approval, the most common concern was resident coercion and loss of confidentiality. Local IRB review of this educational research study varied.

Keywords

research ethics committees institutional review boards graduate medical education medical professionalism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bilimoria

K. Y.

Chung

J. W.

Hedges

L. V.

Dahlke

A. R.

Love

Cohen

M. E.

. . . Lewis

F. R.

(2016). National cluster-randomized trial of duty-hour flexibility in surgical training. The New England Journal of Medicine, 374, 713-727. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1515724

Bracken-Roche

Bell

Macdonald

M. E.

Racine

(2017). The concept of “vulnerability” in research ethics: An in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), Article 8. doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6

Canavan

Holtman

M. C.

Richmond

Katsufrakis

P. J.

(2010). The quality of written comments on professional behaviors in a developmental multisource feedback program. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 85(Suppl. 10), S106-S109. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ed4cdb

Carline

J. D.

O’Sullivan

P. S.

Gruppen

L. D.

Richardson-Nassif

(2007). Crafting successful relationships with the IRB. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical College, 82(Suppl. 10), S57-60. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31813e66d4

Cavalcanti

R. B.

Detsky

A. S.

(2011). The education and training of future physicians: Why coaches can’t be judges. Journal of the American Medical Association, 306, 993-994. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1232

Conforti

L. N.

Hess

B. J.

Ross

K. M.

Lynn

L. A.

Holmboe

E. S.

(2012). Variability in obtaining institutional review board approval for quality improvement activities in residency programs. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4, 106-108. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00176.1

Collins

F.S.

Single IRB Policy to Streamline Reviews of Multi-Site Research. NIH Director. Retrieved from https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/single-irb-policy-streamline-reviews-multi-site-research

Desai

S. V.

Asch

D. A.

Bellini

L. M.

Chaiyachati

K. H.

Liu

Sternberg

A. L.

. . . Shea

J. A.

(2018). Education outcomes in a duty-hour flexibility trial in internal medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 378, 1494-1508. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800965

Domen

R. E.

(2014). Resident remediation, probation, and dismissal basic considerations for program directors. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 141, 784-790. doi:10.1309/AJCPSNPAP5R5NHUS

10.

Dyrbye

L. N.

Thomas

M. R.

Mechaber

A. J.

Eacker

Harper

Massie

F. S.

. . . Shanafelt

T. D.

(2007). Medical education research and IRB review: An analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical College, 82, 654-660. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2007/07000/Medical_Education_Research_and_IRB_Review__An.5.aspx

11.

Dyrbye

L. N.

Thomas

M. R.

Papp

K. K.

Durning

S. J.

(2008). Clinician educators’ experiences with institutional review boards: Results of a national survey. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical College, 83, 590-595. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318172347a

12.

Dziak

Anderson

Sevick

M. A.

Weisman

C. S.

Levine

D. W.

Scholle

S. H.

(2005). Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Services Research, 40, 279-290. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00353.x

13.

Eikelboom

J. I.

ten Cate

O. T. J.

Jaarsma

Raat

J. A. N.

Schuwirth

van Delden

J. J. M.

(2012). A framework for the ethics review of education research. Medical Education, 46, 731-733. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04293.x

14.

Emanuel

E. J.

(2004). Ending concerns about undue inducement. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 32, 100-105.

15.

Fornari

Akbar

Tyler

(2014). Critical synthesis package: Assessment of professional behaviors (APB). MedEDPORTAL, 10, Article 9902. doi:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.9902

16.

Gordon

Culp

Wolinetz

(2017). Final NIH policy on the use of a single institutional review board for multisite research. Clinical and Translational Science, 10, 130-132. doi:10.1111/cts.12447

17.

Green

L. A.

Lowery

J. C.

Kowalski

C. P.

Wyszewianski

(2006). Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Services Research, 41, 214-230. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00458.x

18.

Helfand

B. T.

Mongiu

A. K.

Roehrborn

C. G.

Donnell

R. F.

Bruskewitz

Kaplan

S. A.

(2009). Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial. Journal of Urology, 181, 2674-2679. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.032

19.

Hirshon

J. M.

Krugman

S. D.

Witting

M. D.

Furuno

J. P.

Limcangco

M. R.

Perisse

A. R.

Rasch

E. K.

(2002). Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9, 1417-1420.

20.

Johansson

A. C.

Durning

S. J.

Gruppen

L. D.

Olson

M. E.

Schwartzstein

R. M.

Higgins

P. A.

(2011). Perspective: Medical education research and the institutional review board: Reexamining the process. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical College, 86, 809-817. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31821d6c4c

21.

Kano

Getrich

C. M.

Romney

Sussman

A. L.

Williams

R. L.

(2015). Costs and inconsistencies in US IRB review of low-risk medical education research. Medical Education, 49, 634-637. doi:10.1111/medu.12693

22.

Klitzman

(2013). How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 224-229. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100439

23.

Macklin

(2016, April 12). Informed consent in a dangerous medical resident hours study. Retrieved from http://blogs.einstein.yu.edu/informed-consent-in-a-dangerous-medical-resident-hours-study/

24.

Mansbach

Acholonu

Clark

Camargo

C. A.

Jr. (2007). Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard, observational, pediatric research protocol. Academic Emergency Medicine, 14, 377-380. doi:10.1197/j.aem.2006.11.031

25.

Mazor

K. M.

Canavan

Farrell

Margolis

M. J.

Clauser

B. E.

(2008). Collecting validity evidence for an assessment of professionalism: Findings from think-aloud interviews. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical College, 83(10), S9-S12. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318183e329

26.

Mazor

K. M.

Clauser

B. E.

Holtman

Margolis

M. J.

(2007). Evaluation of missing data in an assessment of professional behaviors. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical College, 82(10), S44-S47. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181404fc6

27.

Nahmias

Grigorian

Brakenridge

Jawa

R. S.

Holena

D. N.

Agapian

J. V.

. . . Pascual

J. L.

(2018). Variations in institutional review board processes and consent requirements for trauma research: An EAST Multicenter Survey. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open, 3(1), e000176. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2018-000176

28.

National Institutes of Health. (2016, June 21). Final NIH policy on the use of a single institutional review board for multi-site research (Notice number: NOT-OD-16-094). Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-16-094.html

29.

Newgard

C. D.

Hui

S.-H. J.

Stamps-White

Lewis

R. J.

(2005). Institutional variability in a minimal risk, population-based study: Recognizing policy barriers to health services research. Health Services Research, 40, 1247-1258. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00408.x

30.

Petersen

L. A.

Simpson

SoRelle

Urech

Chitwood

S. S.

(2012). How variability in the IRB review process impacts minimal-risk multisite health services research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156, 728-735. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-10-201205150-00011

31.

Richmond

(2010). The assessment of professional behaviors. Lansing: Michigan Association of Medical Educators. Retrieved from http://www.mame-assn.org/Presentations/APB%20Dec%202010.pdf

32.

Richmond

Canavan

Holtman

M. C.

Katsufrakis

P. J.

(2011). Feasibility of implementing a standardized multisource feedback program in the graduate medical education environment. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3, 511-516. doi:10.4300/jgme-d-10-00088.1

33.

Silberman

Kahn

K. L.

(2011). Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: The state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. The Milbank Quarterly, 89, 599-627. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00644.x

34.

Silverman

Hull

S. C.

Sugarman

(2001). Variability among institutional review boards’ decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Critical Care Medicine, 29, 235-241. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4809523/

35.

Stair

T. O.

Reed

C. R.

Radeos

M. S.

Koski

Camargo

C. A.

(2001). Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Academic Emergency Medicine, 8, 636-641.

36.

Sullivan

G. M.

(2011a). Education research and human subject protection: Crossing the IRB quagmire. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3(1), 1-4. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00004.1

37.

Sullivan

G. M.

(2011b). Irb 101. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3(1), 5-6. doi:10.4300/jgme-d-11-00005.1

38.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1991). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects (45 Code of Federal Registration [CFR] 46, Protection of human subjects, 45 CFR 46, Revised November 13, 2001, Effective December 13, 2001). Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/exempt-research-determination/index.html

39.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). Exempt determination FAQs. Office for Human Research Protections. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/exempt-research-determination/index.html

40.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2017). The final rule to revise the Common rule. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-01058.pdf

41.

Walsh

(2014). Medical education research: Is participation fair? Perspectives on Medical Education, 3, 379-382. doi:10.1007/s40037-014-0120-5

42.

Whitcomb

M. E.

(2004). Medical education research. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical College, 79(10), Article 907.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.26 MB

0.00 MB