Literature DB >> 22397091

Research governance and change in research ethics practices at a major Australian university.

Yordanka Krastev1, Michael Grimm, Andrew Metcalfe.   

Abstract

Recent revisions of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research put a great emphasis on research governance. Institutional responsibility for the governance of the research is not limited only to the ethical review by the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), but also to the accountability for quality, safety, privacy, risk management and financial management of the research. Despite the development of proposed research governance frameworks, many Australian institutions do not have such structures in place and rely excessively on HRECs to perform administrative functions that are not their responsibility. In this paper we report on implementation of a research governance framework at University of New South Wales which led to reduced HREC workload and allowed more attention to its core functions. We present the approach undertaken by the university to separate the ethical review process by HREC from the research governance. We recommend that with proper research governance frameworks in place, the role of HRECs and the institutional responsibility of governance of the research can be defined clearly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22397091     DOI: 10.1007/BF03351330

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev        ISSN: 1321-2753


  55 in total

1.  Treatment of seriously ill and handicapped newborns.

Authors:  Norman Fost
Journal:  Crit Care Clin       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.598

2.  Death and the value of life.

Authors:  Jeff McMahan
Journal:  Ethics       Date:  1988-10

Review 3.  Nontreatment decisions for severely compromised newborns.

Authors:  Kenneth Kipnis; Gailynn M Williamson
Journal:  Ethics       Date:  1984-10

4.  Spinal muscular atrophy--type I.

Authors:  M K M Hardart; R D Truog
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.791

5.  Financial and time costs to parents of severely disabled children.

Authors:  B Leonard; J D Brust; J J Sapienza
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1992 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

6.  Abandoning informed consent.

Authors:  R M Veatch
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1995 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.683

Review 7.  Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention.

Authors:  Douglas S Diekema
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2004

8.  Attitudes and preferences of intensivists regarding the role of family interests in medical decision making for incompetent patients.

Authors:  George E Hardart; Robert D Truog
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Counseling families and deciding care of severely defective children: a way of coping with 'Medical Vietnam'.

Authors:  R S Duff
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1981-03       Impact factor: 7.124

10.  A life worth giving? The threshold for permissible withdrawal of life support from disabled newborn infants.

Authors:  Dominic James Wilkinson
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 11.229

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.