Improving the Quality and Performance of Institutional Review Boards in the U.S.A. Through Performance Measurements

Abstract

Performance measurement leads to quality improvement, because performance measurement can identify areas of vulnerability to guide quality improvement activities. Recommendations from empirical institutional review board (IRB) performance measurement data on research approval criteria, expedited review protocols, exempt protocols, and IRB continuing review requirements published over the past 10 years are reviewed here to improve the quality and efficiency of IRBs. Implementation of these recommendations should result in improvements that can be evaluated by follow-up performance measurements.

Keywords

IRB quality IRB performance improving IRB quality and performance performance measurement

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. https://catalyst.harvard.edu/pdf/regulatory-events/Applying%20the%20Regulations_May%201%202018.pdf (accessed on July 7, 2020).

Cassel

C. K.

Conway

P. H.

Delbanco

S. F.

Jha

A. K.

Saunders

R. S.

Lee

T. H

. (2014). Getting more performance from performance measurement. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(23), 2145–2147. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1408345

Cooper

J. A.

McNair

. (2020). Practical ethicist: Retrospective review of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 15(3), 227–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646/9891343

Emanuel

E. J.

Wendler

Grady

(2008). An ethical frame-work for biomedical research. In Emanuel

E. J.

Grady

Crouch

R. A.

Lie

R. K.

Miller

F. G.

Wendler

(eds.), The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 123–133). Oxford University Press.

Institute of Medicine. (2001). Preserving public trust: Accreditation and human research participant protection programs. National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine. (2002). Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. National Academies Press.

Klitzman

Appelbaum

P. S.

Murray

Pivovarova

Stiles

Lidz

C. W

. (2020). When IRBs say no to participating in research about single IRBs. Ethics & Human Research. 42(1): 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500041

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. https://doi.org/10.1097/IACM.0b013e3182575e2e

Menikoff

Kaneshiro

Pritchard

. (2017). The common rule, updated. New England Journal of Medicine, 376(7), 613–615. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1700736

10.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Government Printing Office.

11.

Nguyen

Grabenbauer

Tsan

M. F

. (2016). Improving rates of lapse in IRB continuing reviews: The department of veterans Affairs’ experience. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 38(4), 17–20. http://www.thehastingscenter.org/irb_article/improving-rates-lapse-irb-continuing-reviews-department-veterans-affairs-experience/

12.

Rowan-Legg

Weijer

Gao

Fernandez

. (2009). A comparison of journal instructions regarding institutional review board approval and conflict-of-interest disclosure between 1995 and 2005. Journal of Medical Ethics. 35(1), 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1136/me.2008024299

13.

Tsan

M. F.

(2017) Assessing the quality of human research protection programs. Scholars’ Press.

14.

Tsan

M. F

. (2019a) Measuring the quality and performance of institutional review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 14(3), 187–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618804686

15.

Tsan

M. F

. (2019b) From moving beyond compliance to quality to moving beyond quality to effectiveness: Realities and challenges. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 14(3), 204–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619850710

16.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264620908153

17.

Tsan

M. F.

Ling

Feske

Zickmund

Stone

Sonel

Arnold

R. M.

Fine

Hall

D. E

. (2020). Assessing the quality and performance of institutional review boards: Levels of initial reviews. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 15(5), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264620956795

18.

Tsan

M. F.

Nguyen

. (2015). Lapse in institutional review board continuing review approval. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 37(2), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182095c5d

19.

Tsan

M. F.

Nguyen

. (2017). Effectiveness of human research protection program performance measurements. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(4), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617720387

20.

Tsan

M. F.

Nguyen

. (2019). Improving compliance with institutional review board continuing review requirements. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(4), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619837108

21.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Office for Human Research Protections Guidance on IRB Continuing Review of Research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/guidance-on-continuing-review-2010/index.html (accessed December 1, 2020)

22.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Office for Human Research Protections Guidance on reporting incidents to OHRP (2011). https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/compliance-and-reporting/guidance-on-reporting-incident/index.html (accessed December 1, 2020)

23.

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

24.

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

25.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020a). Human subject regulations decision charts-2018 requirements. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/decision-charts-2018/index.html (Accessed December 1, 2020)

26.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020b). Office for Human Research Protections Exempt Research Determination FAQs. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/exempt-research-determination/index.html (accessed December 1, 2020)

27.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2019). Requirements for the protection of human subjects in research. VHA Directive 1200.05(1). https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/publications.cfm?pub=2 (access December 1, 2020)

28.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.jss.2016.06.004