A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives

BMC Medical Ethics

Catherine C. Bornbaum⁵  Jennifer A. H. Bell¹  Vinita Haroun³  Donald J. Willison⁴  Nancy K. Ondrusek² 

[1] Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, 250 College Street, 8th Floor, Toronto M5T 1R8, ON, Canada;Public Health Ontario

[2]  Santé publique Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto M5G 1 V2, ON, Canada;Ontario Long Term Care Association, 425 University Avenue, Suite 500, Markham M5G 1 T6, Canada;Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton L8S 4 L8, ON, Canada;Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Western Ontario, Elborn College, Room 1041, London N6A 1H1, ON, Canada

关键词: Public Health;    Learning healthcare;    Evidence generating;    Program evaluation;    Quality improvement;    Research;    Ethics;    Risk;    Risk assessment;    Risk screening tool;   

Others  :  1221116
DOI  :  10.1186/s12910-015-0039-3

 received in 2014-05-20, accepted in 2015-06-29,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The boundaries between health-related research and practice have become blurred as initiatives traditionally considered to be practice (e.g., quality improvement, program evaluation) increasingly use the same methodology as research. Further, the application of different ethical requirements based on this distinction raises concerns because many initiatives commonly labelled as “non-research” are associated with risks to patients, participants, and other stakeholders, yet may not be subject to any ethical oversight. Accordingly, we sought to develop a tool to facilitate the systematic identification of risks to human participants and determination of risk level across a broad range of projects (e.g., clinical research, laboratory-based projects, population-based surveillance, and program evaluation) and health-related contexts. This paper describes the development of the Public Health Ontario (PHO) Risk Screening Tool.

Method

Development of the PHO Risk Screening Tool included: (1) preparation of a draft risk tool (n = 47 items); (2) expert appraisal; (3) internal stakeholder validation; (4) external validation; (5) pilot testing and evalution of the draft tool; and (6) revision after 1 year of testing.

Results

A risk screening tool was generated consisting of 20 items organized into five risk domains: Sensitivity; Participant Selection, Recruitment and Consent; Data/Sample Collection; Identifiability and Privacy Risk; and Commercial Interests. The PHO Risk Screening Tool is an electronic tool, designed to identify potential project-associated risks to participants and communities and to determine what level of ethics review is required, if any. The tool features an easy to use checklist format that generates a risk score (0–3) associated with a suggested level of ethics review once all items have been completed. The final score is based on a threshold approach to ensure that the final score represents the highest level of risk identified in any of the domains of the tool.

Conclusions

The PHO Risk Screening Tool offers a practical solution to the problem of how to maintain accountability and appropriate risk oversight that transcends the boundaries of research and practice. We hope that the PHO Risk Screening Tool will prove useful in minimizing the problems of over and under protection across a wide range of disciplines and jurisdictions.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Ondrusek et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. 1979.
• [2]Amoroso P, Middaugh J. Research vs. public health practice: when does a study require IRB review? Prev Med. 2003; 36:250-253.
• [3]MacQueen K, Buehler J. Ethics, practice, and research in public health. Am J Public Health. 2004; 94:928-931.
• [4]Fairchild A, Bayer R. Ethics and the conduct of public health surveillance. Science. 2004; 303:631-632.
• [5]Hughes R. Patient safety and quality: an evidence based guide for nurses. In Tools and strategies for quality improvement and patient safety. Edited by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). Rockville, MD: 2008.
• [6]The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary (IOM roundtable on evidence-based medicine). The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2007.
• [7]Largent E, Miller F, Joffe S. A Prescription for Ethical Learning. The Hastings Center Report. 2013.S28-S29.
• [8]Tunis S, Stryer D, Clancy C. Practical clinical trials. Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in Clinical and Health Policy. J Am Med Assoc. 2003; 290(12):1624-1632.
• [9]Baily M, Bottrell M, Lynn J, Jennings B. The Ethics of Using QI Methods to Improve Health Care Quality and Safety. The Hastings Center Report. 2006.
• [10]Taylor H, Pronovost P, Sugarman J. Ethics, oversight and quality improvement initiatives. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010; 19:271-274.
• [11]Thurston W, Vollman A, Burgess M. Ethical review of health promotion program evaluation proposals. Health Promot Pract. 2003; 4:45-50.
• [12]Kass N, Faden R, Goodman S, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp T. The Research-Treatment Distinction: A Problematic Approach for Determining Which Activities Should Have Ethical Oversight. The Hastings Center Report. 2013.S4-S15.
• [13]Guidelines and Practices Manual for Research Involving Human Subjects. 2007.
• [14]Kass N, Pronovost P, Sugarman J, Goeschel C, Lubomski L, Faden R. Controversy and quality improvement: Lingering questions about ethics, oversight and patient safety research. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008; 34(6):349-353.
• [15]Alberta Research Ethics Community Consensus Initiative. ARECCI Ethics Screening Tool: Revised . 2010. Edmonton, AB. 4-7-2014.
• [16]King’s College London Research Ethics. Low risk ethics application procedure. 2014. London, UK. [http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/applications/RESC-REP-Minimal-Risk-Form-2014-15-Dec.pdf] 4-10-2015.
• [17]Vanier College. Research Ethics Screening Tool. 2014. Montreal, QC, Vanier College. [http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/idr/research/vanier-college-research-ethics-board-reb/research-ethics-screening-tool/] 4-7-2014
• [18]Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion Act. S.O., Chapter 10, Schedule K. 2007.
• [19]Public Health Ontario. Ethics Support. 2014. 4-8-2014. http://www. publichealthontario.ca/en/ServicesAndTools/ResearchAndEducationSupport/Pages/Ethics-support.aspx#.U3yZgdJdVBk webcite
• [20]Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Queen’s printer for Ontario, Toronto, ON; 2010.
• [21]Willison D, Ondrusek N, Dawson A, Emerson C, Ferris L, Saginur R et al.. What makes public health studies ethical? Dissolving the boundaries between research and practice. BMC Med Ethics. 2014; 15:61-67. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Alberta Research Ethics Community Consensus Initiative. ARECCI Recommendations - FINAL. Protecting People While Increasing Knowledge: Recommendations for a Province-wide approach to Ethics Review of Knowledge-generating Projects (Research, Program Evaluation, and Quality Improvement) in Health Care. 2005. Edmonton, AB.
• [23]US Department of Health and Human Services. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Public Welfare, Part 46.102(d) (45 CFR 46.102[d]), 2009 Revision. http://www. hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html webcite
• [24]Massey University. Approval and notificiation procedures for human research ethics. 2014.Palmerston, New Zealand. [http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/research/research-ethics/human-ethics/forms-and-procedures.cfm] 20-12-2014.
• [25]National Health Service Health Research Authority. NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC)--Proportionate Review Service. [http://www.hra.nhs.uk/resources/applying-to-recs/nhs-rec-proportionate-review-service/] 31-3-2015.
• [26]Ross L, Loup A, Nelson R, Botkin J, Kost R, Smith G, Gelhert S. Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: A research ethics framework. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010; 5(10):5-17.