[Acceptance of an Ethics Committee (International Review Board)]

The work input of an institutional review board, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of project applicants with its decisions, as well as the amount of time needed for preparatory and follow-up work for projects submitted to the board were surveyed in a questionnaire. An analysis of the status quo provided proposals for improvement, with the aim of increasing the satisfaction of all parties involved. Questionnaires were returned by 41.4% (101/244) of the specialist doctors surveyed. Of these, 42 were doctors who had submitted projects for review and whose evaluation was used for the study. The proportion of trained "clinical review doctors" was 14.3%. Analysis of work input showed that 13.5 +/- 15.2 hours were invested before submitting a project and 6.3 +/- 9.3 hours in the follow-up. Although the board's work was given a satisfactory grading with a score of 2.8 +/- 1.0, the surveyed satisfaction/importance profile showed marked deficits in many areas, primarily in organization and communication, as well as in the examination and evaluation of projects. The suggestions for improvement above all requested the introduction of a review system employing specialists from outside the institution or from other disciplines, standardization of project submission, optimization of organization and improvement in communication. In summary, the institutional review board plays an important role in clinical research. The acceptance of a review board's work, however, can only be improved when the suggestions for improvement are realized step by step. The results of this evaluation and the proposed solutions can also help other boards improve their work. At any rate, it would be desirable to take a new look in several years' time at how the proposals worked out in this study have been implemented.