Clinician educators' experiences with institutional review boards: results of a national survey.

Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota 55906, USA.
Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges (Impact Factor: 3.47). 06/2008; 83(6):590-5. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318172347a
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To explore clinician educators' perceptions and experiences in obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval to conduct medical education research (MER).
Institutional members of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM; n = 110) were surveyed in 2006. The survey included questions about familiarity with and clarity of IRB policies, satisfaction with review of education research protocols, and how MER might be facilitated.
Of 83 respondents (response rate 76%), 50 had submitted a MER protocol to an IRB. Nearly all were deemed exempt (74/154) or minimal risk (71/154). No protocols were rejected or not approved. Nearly a fourth of respondents were unfamiliar with specific IRB policies directly applicable to MER. Among those respondents who had some familiarity with the IRB policies specified, 47% to 52% considered the IRB policies clear. Eighteen of 30 (60%) respondents with recent experience in multiinstitutional MER agreed there were notable differences in the expectations of various institutional IRBs; only two reported that multiple IRB reviews resulted in improvements to the protocol. Half (37/73) indicated they would be more likely to conduct MER if they had a better understanding of the IRB's role and requirements in MER. Sixty-six of 73 (90%) agreed they would benefit from a national consensus statement regarding the IRB's role in MER.
A high percentage of clinician educators in CDIM are conducting IRB-approved MER. They report several challenges with working with IRBs, and they agree that IRBs and clinician educators would benefit from a national consensus on the IRB's role in MER.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 2012 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference on education research in emergency medicine (EM) addressed various issues, including that of ethics in medical education research for EM. Education research in EM is essential to patient care and safety, and with recent advances in simulation and the advent of the Milestones project, it will become even more vital. Education research in EM is guided by the same principles that guide the ethical conduct of all human subjects' research: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Regulatory provisions and widely accepted ethical standards provide a framework for research in EM education; however, special considerations exist for education research. To ensure patient and trainee safety and to maintain the integrity of new knowledge, ethical considerations should remain at the forefront of EM education research. For EM education researchers, recognition of the vulnerability of residents, medical students, and others as research subjects is paramount. This article fills an important gap by outlining the principles guiding education research in EM, exploring the ethical challenges and approaches to education research, and offering a framework and future directions for the ethical conduct of education research in EM.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 12/2012; DOI:10.1111/acem.12019 · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The system in place to ensure the ethical conduct of human subject research in accordance with federal regulations has drawn great criticism from all sides, to include clinical investigators, administrators, research subjects, and legislators. The administrative requirements associated with clinical trials has changed dramatically in the last several decades, as has the complexity of the science being regulated. The institutional review board (IRB) system, however, appears to be struggling to keep pace, and has even been labeled a "system in jeopardy" by a national committee of experts. This contribution outlines the current obstacles and critique of IRBs, providing a discussion of the structure of the IRB system and strategies to meet these challenges.
    Clinics in dermatology 07/2009; 27(4):375-83. DOI:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2009.02.012 · 1.93 Impact Factor
  • Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 10/2010; 85(10):1549. DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f04765 · 3.47 Impact Factor