The red tape and delays around research ethics and governance approvals frequently frustrate researchers yet, as the lesser of two evils, are largely accepted as unavoidable. Here we quantify aspects of the research ethics and governance approvals for one interview- and questionnaire-based study conducted in England which used the National Health Service procedures and the electronic Integrated Research Application System. We demonstrate the enormous impact of existing approvals processes on costs of studies, including opportunity costs to focus on the substantive (...) research, and suggest directions for radical system change. We have recorded 491 exchanges with 89 individuals involved in research ethics and governance approvals, generating 193 pages of email text excluding attachments. These are conservative estimates. The exchanges were conducted outside IRAS, expected to be the platform where all necessary documents are provided and questions addressed. Importantly, the figures exclude the actual work of preparing the ethics documentation. We propose six areas of work to enable system change: 1. Support the development of a broad range of customised research ethics and governance templates to complement generic, typically clinical trials orientated, ones; 2. Develop more sophisticated and flexible frameworks for study classification; 3. Link with associated processes for assessment, feedback, monitoring and reporting, such as ones involving funders and patient and public involvement groups; 4. Invest in a new generation IT infrastructure; 5. Enhance system capacity through increasing online reviewer participation and training; and 6. Encourage researchers to quantify the approvals processes for their studies. Ethics and governance approvals are burdensome for historical reasons and not because of the nature of the task. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency and analytic depth in an age of innovation, increased connectivity and distributed working. If we continue to work under current systems, we are perpetuating, paradoxically, an unethical system of research approvals by virtue of its wastefulness and impoverished ethical debate. (shrink)

BackgroundSome people with progressive neurological diseases find they need additional support with eating and drinking at mealtimes, and may require artificial nutrition and hydration. Decisions concerning artificial nutrition and hydration at the end of life are ethically complex, particularly if the individual lacks decision-making capacity. Decisions may concern issues of life and death: weighing the potential for increasing morbidity and prolonging suffering, with potentially shortening life. When individuals lack decision-making capacity, the standard processes of obtaining informed consent for medical interventions (...) are disrupted. Increasingly multi-professional groups are being utilised to make difficult ethical decisions within healthcare. This paper reports upon a service evaluation which examined decision-making within a UK hospital Feeding Issues Multi-Professional Team.MethodsA three month observation of a hospital-based multi-professional team concerning feeding issues, and a one year examination of their records. The key research questions are: a) How are decisions made concerning artificial nutrition for individuals at risk of lacking decision-making capacity? b) What are the key decision-making factors that are balanced? c) Who is involved in the decision-making process?ResultsDecision-making was not a singular decision, but rather involved many different steps. Discussions involving relatives and other clinicians, often took place outside of meetings. Topics of discussion varied but the outcome relied upon balancing the information along four interdependent axes: Risks, burdens and benefits; Treatment goals; Normative ethical values; Interested parties.ConclusionsDecision-making was a dynamic ongoing process with many people involved. The multiple points of decision-making, and the number of people involved with the decision-making process, mean the question of ‘who decides’ cannot be fully answered. There is a potential for anonymity of multiple decision-makers to arise. Decisions in real world clinical practice may not fit precisely into a model of decision-making. The findings from this service evaluation illustrate that within multi-professional team decision-making; decisions may contain elements of both substituted and supported decision-making, and may be better represented as existing upon a continuum. (shrink)

In their letter to the Editor in this issue, Kolstoe and Carpenter challenge a core aspect of our recently published case study of research approvals [BMC Medical Ethics 20:7] by arguing that we conflate research ethics with governance and funding processes. Amongst the key concerns of the authors are: 1) that our paper exemplifies a typical conflation of concepts such as governance, integrity and ethics, with significant consequences for claims around the responsibility and accountability of the organisations involved; 2) that, (...) as a consequence of this conflation, we misrepresent the ethics review process, including in fundamental aspects such as the ethics approval-opinion distinction; 3) that it is difficult to see scope for greater integration of processes such as applying for funding, research approvals, Patient and Public Involvement, etc., as suggested by us. Here we present an alternative point of view towards the concerns raised. (shrink)