Assessing the Quality and Performance of Institutional Review Boards: Levels of Initial Reviews

Abstract

How well institutional review boards (IRBs) follow Common Rule criteria for levels of initial protocol review has not been systematically evaluated. We compared levels of review as determined using the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) human subject regulations decision charts of 313 protocols that had been approved by IRBs. There was a 97.8% agreement between 140 protocols that were reviewed by full board and the levels of review according to OHRP criteria. Likewise, there was a 93.8% agreement between 113 protocols that were reviewed using an expedited review procedure and OHRP criteria. However, there was only 75% agreement for exempt protocols. Specifically, 10 (16.7%) of the 60 exempt protocols were found to require IRB review, that is, six protocols requiring expedited review and four protocols requiring full board review. Conducting non-exempt research without prior IRB approval constitutes serious noncompliance. Our data suggest that exempt protocols need more scrutiny.

Keywords

institutional review board levels of review full board review expedited review exempt protocols

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

M. A.

(2018). Overview of the revised common rule. Harvard Catalyst. Retrieved July 7, 2020, from https://catalyst.harvard.edu/pdf/regulatory-events/Applying%20the%20Regulations_May%201%202018.pdf

Cleaton-Jones

Wassenaar

(2010). Protection of human participants in health research—A comparison of some US federal regulations and South African research ethics guidelines. South African Medical Journal, 100(11), 710–716.

Cooper

J. A.

McNair

(2019). Practical ethicist: Retrospective review of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(3), 227–228.

Driscoll

Currey

Worrall-Carter

Stewart

(2008). Ethical dilemmas of a large national multi-centre study in Australia: Time for some consistency. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(16), 2212–2220.

Friesen

Yusof

A. N. M.

Sheehan

(2019). Should the decisions of institutional review boards be consistent? Ethics & Human Research, 41(4), 1–14.

Goldman

Katz

M. D.

(1982). Inconsistency and institutional review boards. Journal of the American Medical Association, 248(1), 197–202.

Lidz

C. W.

Appelbaum

P. S.

Arnold

Candilis

Gardner

Myers

Simon

(2012). How closely do institutional review boards follow the Common Rule? Academic Medicine, 87(7), 969–974.

Menikoff

Kaneshiro

Pritchard

(2017). The common rule, updated. New England Journal of Medicine, 376(7), 613–615.

Nahmias

Grigorian

Brakenridge

Jawa

R. S.

Holena

D. N.

Agapian

J. V.

Bruns

Chestovich

P. J.

Chung

Nguyen

Schulman

C. I.

Staudenmayer

Dixon

Smith

J. W.

Bernard

A.C.

Pascual

J. L.

(2018). Variations in institutional review board processes and consentrequirements for trauma research: An EAST multicenter survey. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open, 3(1), e000176. https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2018-000176

10.

Petersen

L. A.

Simpson

Sorelle

Urech

Chitwood

S. S.

(2012). How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156(10), 728–735.

11.

Silaigwana

Wassenaar

(2019). Research ethics committees’ oversight of biomedical research in South Africa: A thematic analysis of ethical issues raised during ethics review of non-expedited protocols. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(2), 107–116.

12.

Tsan

M. F.

(2019). Measuring the quality and performance of institutional review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(3), 187–189.

13.

Tsan

M. F.

(2020). Comment on the proposed institutional review board retrospective review of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(3), 229–231.

14.

Tsoka-Gwegweni

J. M.

Wassenaar

(2014). Using the Emanuel et al. framework to assess ethical issues raised by a biomedical research ethics committee in South Africa. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 36–45.

15.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1998). OHRP expedited review categories. Retrieved February 1, 2020, from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/categories-of-research-expedited-review-procedure-1998/index.html

16.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Guidance on reporting incidents to OHRP (2011). Retrieved February 1, 2020, from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/compliance-and-reporting/guidance-on-reporting-incident/index.html

17.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). Human subject regulations decision charts-Pre-2018 requirements. Retrieved February 1, 2020, from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/decision-charts/index.html

18.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects: 45 code of Federal Registration (CFR) 46. Retrieved February 1, 2020, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html

19.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020a). Exempt research determination FAQs. Retrieved July 29, 2020, from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/exempt-research-determination/index.html

20.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020b). Human subject regulations decision charts-2018 requirements. Retrieved July 28, 2020, from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/decision-charts-2018/index.html

21.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2019). Requirements for the protection of human subjects in research. VHA Directive 1200.05.

22.

Varley

P. R.

Feske

Gao

Stone

R. A.

Zhang

Monte

Arnold

R. M.

Hall

D. E.

(2016). Time required to review research protocols at 10 Veterans Affairs Institutional Review Boards. Journal of Surgical Research, 204(2), 481–489.