Navigating the institutional review board approval process in a multicenter observational critical care study

Carmen C. Polito, Sushma K. Cribbs, Greg S. Martin, Terence S Okeeffe, Dan Herr, Todd W. Rice, Jonathan E. Sevransky

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To characterize variation in the institutional review board application process of a multicenter, observational critical care study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND Subjects: Survey analysis of 36 investigators who applied for participation in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group: Critical Illness and Outcomes Study, an observational study of 69 adult ICUs. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Analysis of investigator-specific characteristics, institutional review board process, application and approval dates, and level of difficulty in obtaining approval. Surveys were analyzed from 36 sites (95%) that applied for institutional review board approval. Level of review ranged from full board, expedited, to exempt. Seventy-five percent of applications were submitted by an experienced investigator while 25% were submitted by a less experienced investigator. Median time to institutional review board approval was 30 days (interquartile range, 14-54) and ranged from 5 days to 5.5 months. Time to approval was 29 days (interquartile range, 17-48) for applications submitted by an experienced investigator compared with 97 days (interquartile range, 25-159) for those submitted by a less experienced investigator (p = 0.08). Subjective level of difficulty was significantly higher for less experienced investigators (4 of 10; interquartile range, 2-8) vs experienced investigators (2 of 10; interquartile range, 1-3) (p = 0.04). Four sites cited institutional review board concern regarding waiver of consent as a major barrier to approval and were required to perform revisions or participate in board meetings regarding this concern. Conclusions: In a multicenter, observational critical care study, significant variation was observed between sites in all aspects of the institutional review board evaluation and approval process. The level of difficulty was significantly higher for less experienced investigators with a trend toward longer time to institutional review board approval. Variation in institutional review board interpretation of waiver of informed consent regulations was cited as a major barrier to approval.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1105-1109
Number of pages5
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume42
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
Critical Care
Research Personnel
Critical Illness
Informed Consent
Observational Studies
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • critical care
  • institutional review board
  • multicenter research
  • protocol

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Navigating the institutional review board approval process in a multicenter observational critical care study. / Polito, Carmen C.; Cribbs, Sushma K.; Martin, Greg S.; Okeeffe, Terence S; Herr, Dan; Rice, Todd W.; Sevransky, Jonathan E.

In: Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2014, p. 1105-1109.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Polito, Carmen C. ; Cribbs, Sushma K. ; Martin, Greg S. ; Okeeffe, Terence S ; Herr, Dan ; Rice, Todd W. ; Sevransky, Jonathan E. / Navigating the institutional review board approval process in a multicenter observational critical care study. In: Critical Care Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 42, No. 5. pp. 1105-1109.
@article{b51a4d55564f46989a43523a7faf6d30,
title = "Navigating the institutional review board approval process in a multicenter observational critical care study",
abstract = "Objective: To characterize variation in the institutional review board application process of a multicenter, observational critical care study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND Subjects: Survey analysis of 36 investigators who applied for participation in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group: Critical Illness and Outcomes Study, an observational study of 69 adult ICUs. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Analysis of investigator-specific characteristics, institutional review board process, application and approval dates, and level of difficulty in obtaining approval. Surveys were analyzed from 36 sites (95{\%}) that applied for institutional review board approval. Level of review ranged from full board, expedited, to exempt. Seventy-five percent of applications were submitted by an experienced investigator while 25{\%} were submitted by a less experienced investigator. Median time to institutional review board approval was 30 days (interquartile range, 14-54) and ranged from 5 days to 5.5 months. Time to approval was 29 days (interquartile range, 17-48) for applications submitted by an experienced investigator compared with 97 days (interquartile range, 25-159) for those submitted by a less experienced investigator (p = 0.08). Subjective level of difficulty was significantly higher for less experienced investigators (4 of 10; interquartile range, 2-8) vs experienced investigators (2 of 10; interquartile range, 1-3) (p = 0.04). Four sites cited institutional review board concern regarding waiver of consent as a major barrier to approval and were required to perform revisions or participate in board meetings regarding this concern. Conclusions: In a multicenter, observational critical care study, significant variation was observed between sites in all aspects of the institutional review board evaluation and approval process. The level of difficulty was significantly higher for less experienced investigators with a trend toward longer time to institutional review board approval. Variation in institutional review board interpretation of waiver of informed consent regulations was cited as a major barrier to approval.",
keywords = "critical care, institutional review board, multicenter research, protocol",
author = "Polito, {Carmen C.} and Cribbs, {Sushma K.} and Martin, {Greg S.} and Okeeffe, {Terence S} and Dan Herr and Rice, {Todd W.} and Sevransky, {Jonathan E.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1097/CCM.0000000000000133",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "1105--1109",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Navigating the institutional review board approval process in a multicenter observational critical care study

AU - Polito, Carmen C.

AU - Cribbs, Sushma K.

AU - Martin, Greg S.

AU - Okeeffe, Terence S

AU - Herr, Dan

AU - Rice, Todd W.

AU - Sevransky, Jonathan E.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Objective: To characterize variation in the institutional review board application process of a multicenter, observational critical care study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND Subjects: Survey analysis of 36 investigators who applied for participation in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group: Critical Illness and Outcomes Study, an observational study of 69 adult ICUs. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Analysis of investigator-specific characteristics, institutional review board process, application and approval dates, and level of difficulty in obtaining approval. Surveys were analyzed from 36 sites (95%) that applied for institutional review board approval. Level of review ranged from full board, expedited, to exempt. Seventy-five percent of applications were submitted by an experienced investigator while 25% were submitted by a less experienced investigator. Median time to institutional review board approval was 30 days (interquartile range, 14-54) and ranged from 5 days to 5.5 months. Time to approval was 29 days (interquartile range, 17-48) for applications submitted by an experienced investigator compared with 97 days (interquartile range, 25-159) for those submitted by a less experienced investigator (p = 0.08). Subjective level of difficulty was significantly higher for less experienced investigators (4 of 10; interquartile range, 2-8) vs experienced investigators (2 of 10; interquartile range, 1-3) (p = 0.04). Four sites cited institutional review board concern regarding waiver of consent as a major barrier to approval and were required to perform revisions or participate in board meetings regarding this concern. Conclusions: In a multicenter, observational critical care study, significant variation was observed between sites in all aspects of the institutional review board evaluation and approval process. The level of difficulty was significantly higher for less experienced investigators with a trend toward longer time to institutional review board approval. Variation in institutional review board interpretation of waiver of informed consent regulations was cited as a major barrier to approval.

AB - Objective: To characterize variation in the institutional review board application process of a multicenter, observational critical care study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND Subjects: Survey analysis of 36 investigators who applied for participation in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group: Critical Illness and Outcomes Study, an observational study of 69 adult ICUs. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Analysis of investigator-specific characteristics, institutional review board process, application and approval dates, and level of difficulty in obtaining approval. Surveys were analyzed from 36 sites (95%) that applied for institutional review board approval. Level of review ranged from full board, expedited, to exempt. Seventy-five percent of applications were submitted by an experienced investigator while 25% were submitted by a less experienced investigator. Median time to institutional review board approval was 30 days (interquartile range, 14-54) and ranged from 5 days to 5.5 months. Time to approval was 29 days (interquartile range, 17-48) for applications submitted by an experienced investigator compared with 97 days (interquartile range, 25-159) for those submitted by a less experienced investigator (p = 0.08). Subjective level of difficulty was significantly higher for less experienced investigators (4 of 10; interquartile range, 2-8) vs experienced investigators (2 of 10; interquartile range, 1-3) (p = 0.04). Four sites cited institutional review board concern regarding waiver of consent as a major barrier to approval and were required to perform revisions or participate in board meetings regarding this concern. Conclusions: In a multicenter, observational critical care study, significant variation was observed between sites in all aspects of the institutional review board evaluation and approval process. The level of difficulty was significantly higher for less experienced investigators with a trend toward longer time to institutional review board approval. Variation in institutional review board interpretation of waiver of informed consent regulations was cited as a major barrier to approval.

KW - critical care

KW - institutional review board

KW - multicenter research

KW - protocol

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899484938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899484938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000133

DO - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000133

M3 - Article

C2 - 24368345

AN - SCOPUS:84899484938

VL - 42

SP - 1105

EP - 1109

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 5

ER -