Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective

BACKGROUND: For ethical approval of a multicentre study in Canada, investigators must apply separately to individual Research Ethics Boards (REBs). In principle, the protection of human research subjects is of utmost importance. However, in practice, the process of multicentre ethics review can be time consuming and costly, requiring duplication of effort for researchers and REBs. We used our experience with ethical review of The Canadian Perinatal Network (CPN), to gain insight into the Canadian system. METHODS: The applications forms of 16 different REBs were abstracted for a list of standardized items. The application process across sites was compared. Correspondence between the REB and the investigators was documented in order to construct a timeline to approval, identify the specific issues raised by each board, and describe how they were resolved. RESULTS: Each REB had a different application form. Most (n = 9) had a two or three step application process. Overall, it took a median of 31 days (range 2-174 days) to receive an initial response from the REB. Approval took a median of 42 days (range 4-443 days). Privacy and consent were the two major issues raised. Several additional minor or administrative issues were raised which delayed approval. CONCLUSIONS: For CPN, the Canadian REB process of ethical review proved challenging. REBs acted independently and without unified application forms or submission procedures. We call for a critical examination of the ethical, privacy and institutional review processes in Canada, to determine the best way to undertake multicentre review

UK pneumonectomy outcome study (UKPOS): a prospective observational study of pneumonectomy outcome

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In order to assess the short term risks of pneumonectomy for lung cancer in contemporary practice a one year prospective observational study of pneumonectomy outcome was made. Current UK practice for pneumonectomy was observed to note patient and treatment factors associated with major complications.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study was performed. All 35 UK thoracic surgical centres were invited to submit data to the study. All adult patients undergoing pneumonectomy for lung cancer between 1 January and 31 December 2005 were included. Patients undergoing pleuropneumonectomy, extended pneumonectomy, completion pneumonectomy following previous lobectomy and pneumonectomy for benign disease, were excluded from the study.</p> <p>The main outcome measure was suffering a major complication. Major complications were defined as: death within 30 days of surgery; treated cardiac arrhythmia or hypotension; unplanned intensive care admission; further surgery or inotrope usage.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>312 pneumonectomies from 28 participating centres were entered. The major complication incidence was: 30-day mortality 5.4%; treated cardiac arrhythmia 19.9%; unplanned intensive care unit admission 9.3%; further surgery 4.8%; inotrope usage 3.5%. Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥ P3, pre-operative diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and epidural analgesia were collectively the strongest risk factors for major complications. Major complications prolonged median hospital stay by 2 days.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The 30 day mortality rate was less than 8%, in agreement with the British Thoracic Society guidelines. Pneumonectomy was associated with a high rate of major complications. Age, ASA physical status, DLCO and epidural analgesia appeared collectively most associated with major complications.</p