Abstract
ObjectiveClinical research involving humans is critically important, but it is a lengthy and expensive process. Most studies require institutional review board (IRB) approval. Our objective is to identify predictors of delays or accelerations in the IRB review process and apply this knowledge to inform process change in an effort to improve IRB efficiency, transparency, consistency and communication.MethodsWe analyzed timelines of protocol submissions to determine protocol or IRB characteristics associated with different processing times. Our evaluation included single variable analysis to identify significant predictors of IRB processing time and machine learning methods to predict processing times through the IRB review system. Based on initial identified predictors, changes to IRB workflow and staffing procedures were instituted and we repeated our analysis.ResultsOur analysis identified several predictors of delays in the IRB review process including type of IRB review to be conducted, whether a protocol falls under Veteran’s Administration purview and specific staff in charge of a protocol's review.ConclusionsWe have identified several predictors of delays in IRB protocol review processing times using statistical and machine learning methods. Application of this knowledge to process improvement efforts in two IRBs has led to increased efficiency in protocol review. The workflow and system enhancements that are being made support our four-part goal of improving IRB efficiency, consistency, transparency, and communication.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference48 articles.
1. Menikoff J . Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 80th edition [Internet]. Federal Register: The daily journal of the United States Government [cited January 11, 2016]. pp. 53931–54061. (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/09/08/2015-21756)
2. Reforming the Regulations Governing Research with Human Subjects
3. Institutional Review Boards
4. CLARA: an integrated clinical research administration system;Bian;Journal of the American Medical Association,2014
5. From anonymity to “open doors”: IRB responses to tensions with researchers
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献