Western Journal of Nursing Research · 1992 · 14 citations · 6 references
Public HealthHealth LawClinical Research RegulationMedical EthicsResearch EthicsHuman Subjects ProtectionInstitutional Review Board OversightInstitutional Review BoardsInvestigator ResponsibilitiesResearch Ethics OversightBoard Review ProcessesEthical OversightEthical Review ProcessesHuman Subjects OversightInstitutional Review Board AdministrationInstitutional Review Board ApprovalIrb Decision MakingResearch-clinical Boundary
There is increasing evidence to support the contention that the boundaries between QA and scientific clinical research are blurred. This blurring is of particular concern in relation to the protection of human subjects rights (Brett & Grodin, 1991). The article thus concludes that it is essential that proposals for QA programs undergo periodic appraisal by an institutionally responsible, disinterested review panel. It further concludes that it is essential to submit proposals for all prospective QA projects, potentially scientifically meritorious QA projects, and all scientific clinical research projects to an institutional review board (IRB) to render decisions about the protection of human subject's rights before accessing data. Doing so protects the subject's rights, protects the investigator from unwittingly rendering harm rather than good, and enhances the ethical credibility of the projects. It also protects the investigator from embarrassing and potentially litigious situations. It is also incumbent on IRBs to develop efficient, effective, and expeditious review processes that encourage rather than discourage the a priori review process.
6
Transparency: Informed Consent in Primary Care
Howard Brody · The Hastings Center Report · 1989 · 256 citations
Law, Health Law, Medical Ethics +10
Ethical Decision Making in Clinical Practice
Marsha D. Fowler · Nursing Clinics of North America · 1989 · 25 citations