Literature DB >> 17657582

Clinical audit and reform of the UK research ethics review system.

E Cave1, C Nichols.   

Abstract

There is an international consensus that medical research involving humans should only be undertaken in accordance with ethical principles. Paradoxically though, there is no consensus over the kinds of activities that constitute research and should be subject to review. In the UK and elsewhere, research requiring review is distinguished from clinical audit. Unfortunately the two activities are not always easy to differentiate from one another. Moreover, as the volume of audit increases and becomes more formal in response to the demand for evidence-based practice in medicine, the overlap between research and audit grows more acute. Arguably, similar ethical standards and systems for ensuring that those standards are met should be applied regardless of whether or not a project is classified as research or audit. At a time when the research ethics review system in the UK is undergoing significant reform it is important that the opportunity is not missed to address the longstanding research-audit problem. We discuss suggestions for further reform that addresses this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17657582     DOI: 10.1007/s11017-007-9034-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth        ISSN: 1386-7415


  15 in total

1.  Translating quality into research: do we need more research into quality or should quality activities be conducted using the principles and methodological rigour of scientific research? Australasian Association for Quality in Health Care.

Authors:  J E Ibrahim
Journal:  J Qual Clin Pract       Date:  2000 Jun-Sep

2.  Differentiating between audit and research: postal survey of health authorities' views.

Authors:  A Wilson; G Grimshaw; R Baker; J Thompson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-11-06

3.  Clinical audit, the case for ethical scrutiny?

Authors:  G Rix; K Cutting
Journal:  Int J Health Care Qual Assur       Date:  1996

Review 4.  Achievements of audit in the NHS.

Authors:  J M Buxton
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1994-06

5.  Multicentre research: negotiating the ethics approval obstacle course.

Authors:  David J Maxwell; Karen I Kaye
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2004-10-18       Impact factor: 7.738

6.  Scientific research is a moral duty.

Authors:  John Harris
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  Ethicalization in bioscience--a pilot study in Finland.

Authors:  Matti Häyry; Jukka Takala; Piia Jallinoja; Salla Lötjönen; Tuija Takala
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.284

8.  Thin line between research and audit.

Authors:  V Choo
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-08-01       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Vitamin D deficiency in veiled or dark-skinned pregnant women.

Authors:  S R Grover; R Morley
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2001-09-03       Impact factor: 7.738

10.  Are audits wasting resources by measuring the wrong things? A survey of methods used to select audit review criteria.

Authors:  H M Hearnshaw; R M Harker; F M Cheater; R H Baker; G M Grimshaw
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-02
View more
  2 in total

1.  Clinical audit in nuclear medicine.

Authors:  Siroos Mirzaei; Lorenzo Maffioli; Andrew Hilson
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  Bone regeneration: stem cell therapies and clinical studies in orthopaedics and traumatology.

Authors:  Enrique Gómez-Barrena; Philippe Rosset; Ingo Müller; Rosaria Giordano; Carmen Bunu; Pierre Layrolle; Yrjö T Konttinen; Frank P Luyten
Journal:  J Cell Mol Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.310

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.