Inconsistencies and time delays in site-specific research approvals hinder collaborative clinical research in Australia

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to describe the time and documentation needed to gain ethics and governance approvals in Australian states with and without a centralised ethical review system. METHODS: This is a prospective descriptive study undertaken between February 2012 and March 2015. Paediatric and adult hospitals (n = 67) in Australian states were approached to allow the review of their medical records. Participants included 15- to 24-year-olds diagnosed with cancer between 2008 and 2012. The main outcomes measures were time (weeks) to approval for ethics and governance and the number and type of documents submitted. RESULTS: Centralised ethics approval processes were used in five states, with approval taking between 2 and 18 weeks. One state did not use a centralised process, with ethics approval taking a median of 4.5 weeks (range: 0-15) per site. In four states using a centralised ethics process, 33 governance applications were submitted, with 20 requiring a site clinician listed as an investigator. Governance applications required the submission of 11 documents on average, including a Site-Specific Assessment form. Thirty-two governance applications required original signatures from a median of 3.5 (range: 1-10) non-research persons, which took a median of 5 weeks (range: 0-15) to obtain. Governance approval took a median of 6 weeks (range: 1-45). Twelve research study agreements were needed, each taking a median of 7.5 weeks (range: 1-20) to finalise. CONCLUSION: The benefits of centralised ethics review systems have not been realised due to duplicative, inflexible governance processes. A system that allowed the recognition of prior ethical approval and low-risk applications was more efficient than a central ethics and site-specific governance process