Related Experiment Videos
The annual reports of Local Research Ethics Committees
C G Foster1, T Marshall, P Moodie
1Centre of Medical Law and Ethics, King's College, London.
Journal of Medical Ethics
|August 1, 1995
Summary
Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) often fail to meet membership size guidelines and report inconsistently on research outcomes. Recommendations are provided to improve LREC operations and accountability.
Area of Science:
- Medical Ethics
- Health Services Research
- Research Governance
Background:
- Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) are mandated to produce annual reports for their establishing authorities.
- Adherence to Department of Health guidelines and committee accountability are key aspects of LREC operations.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate LREC annual reports against current Department of Health guidelines.
- To assess the role and accountability of LRECs.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of annual reports from 145 Local Research Ethics Committees.
- Assessment of report content for adherence to guidelines and inclusion of specific data points.
- Examination of LREC operational aspects, including membership, project review volume, and outcome monitoring.
Main Results:
- Most LRECs submitted reports, varying in length and detail.
- Committees generally adhered to guidelines, with most including lay members.
- Commonly unmet guidelines included membership size limits; many committees reviewed numerous projects.
- Reporting on individual project outcomes and monitoring was infrequent (23%).
- The purchaser-provider split introduced confusion into the LREC operational framework.
Conclusions:
- LREC reporting practices show commitment but lack consistency, particularly regarding outcome monitoring.
- The operational framework for LRECs requires clarification, especially concerning the purchaser-provider split.
- Suggestions are proposed to enhance LREC effectiveness and accountability.