‘Screening audit’ as a quality assurance tool in good clinical practice compliant research environments

BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):30 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

With the growing amount of clinical research, regulations and research ethics are becoming more stringent. This trend introduces a need for quality assurance measures for ensuring adherence to research ethics and human research protection beyond Institutional Review Board approval. Audits, one of the most effective tools for assessing quality assurance, are measures used to evaluate Good Clinical Practice and protocol compliance in clinical research. However, they are laborious, time consuming, and require expertise. Therefore, we developed a simple auditing process and evaluated its feasibility and effectiveness. The screening audit was developed using a routine audit checklist based on the Severance Hospital’s Human Research Protection Program policies and procedures. The measure includes 20 questions, and results are summarized in five categories of audit findings. We analyzed 462 studies that were reviewed by the Severance Hospital Human Research Protection Center between 2013 and 2017. We retrospectively analyzed research characteristics, reply rate, audit findings, associated factors and post-screening audit compliance, etc. Investigator reply rates gradually increased, except for the first year. The studies were graded as “critical,” “major,” “minor,” and “not a finding”, based on findings and number of deficiencies. The auditors’ decisions showed fair agreement with weighted kappa values of 0.316, 0.339, and 0.373. Low-risk level studies, single center studies, and non-phase clinical research showed more prevalent frequencies of being “major” or “critical”. Inappropriateness of documents, failure to obtain informed consent, inappropriateness of informed consent process, and failure to protect participants’ personal information were associated with higher audit grade. We were able to observe critical GCP violations in the routine internal audit results of post-screening audit compliance checks in “non-responding” and “critical” studies upon applying the screening audit. Our screening audit is a simple and effective way to assess overall GCP compliance by institutions and to ensure medical ethics. The tool also provides useful selection criteria for conducting routine audits.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,685

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Clinical Practice, Clinical Audit, Quality Assurance, Research.W. J. Uren - 2002 - Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 7 (4):7.
The evolution of clinical audit as a tool for quality improvement.Berk Michael, Callaly Thomas & Hyland Mary - 2003 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 9 (2):251-257.
The relationship between clinical audit and ethics.S. Kinn - 1997 - Journal of Medical Ethics 23 (4):250-253.
Measuring the quality of clinical audit projects.Andrew D. Millard - 2000 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 6 (4):359-370.
The concept of quality in clinical research.Dorota Śwituła - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):147-156.
Clinical audit and quality improvement–time for a rethink?Paul Bowie, Nicholas A. Bradley & Rosemary Rushmer - 2012 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 18 (1):42-48.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-04-27

Downloads
32 (#426,463)

6 months
2 (#650,101)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Making human research safe: Why we cannot afford to fail.Marjorie Speers - 2005 - Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (1):53-59.

Add more references