Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Why are organisational approvals needed for low...

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK?: Procedures, barriers, and burdens

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens. / Dunleavy, Lesley; Board, Ruth ; Coyle, Seamus et al.
In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1408, 15.11.2024.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Dunleavy, L, Board, R, Coyle, S, Dickman, A, Ellershaw, JE, Gadoud, A, Halvorsen, J, Hulbert-Williams, N, Lightbody, CE, Mason, S, Nwosu, A, Partridge, A, Payne, S, Preston, N, Swash, B, Taylor, V & Walshe, C 2024, 'Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens', BMC Health Services Research, vol. 24, no. 1, 1408. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0

APA

Dunleavy, L., Board, R., Coyle, S., Dickman, A., Ellershaw, J. E., Gadoud, A., Halvorsen, J., Hulbert-Williams, N., Lightbody, C. E., Mason, S., Nwosu, A., Partridge, A., Payne, S., Preston, N., Swash, B., Taylor, V., & Walshe, C. (2024). Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens. BMC Health Services Research, 24(1), Article 1408. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0

Vancouver

Dunleavy L, Board R, Coyle S, Dickman A, Ellershaw JE, Gadoud A et al. Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens. BMC Health Services Research. 2024 Nov 15;24(1):1408. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0

Author

Dunleavy, Lesley ; Board, Ruth ; Coyle, Seamus et al. / Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens. In: BMC Health Services Research. 2024 ; Vol. 24, No. 1.

Bibtex

@article{6e662a25db5b4838be6af1dcdc736b32,
title = "Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK?: Procedures, barriers, and burdens",
abstract = "Background: Health care staff should be given the opportunity to participate in research, but recruiting clinicians via their employing organisation is not always straightforward or quick in the UK. Unlike many countries outside the UK, very low-risk survey, interview or focus group studies can be subject to some of the same governance approval procedures as interventional studies. An exemplar study carried out by the NIHR funded Palliative Care Research Partnership North West Coast is used to highlight the challenges still faced by researchers and health care organisations when setting up a low-risk staff study across multiple NHS and non-NHS sites. Methods: A study database was created and information was collected on the first point of contact with the clinical site, Health Research Authority (HRA) and local organisational approval times, time from trust or hospice agreement to the first survey participant recruited and overall site survey recruitment numbers. Descriptive statistics (median, range) were used to analyse these data. Results: Across participating NHS trusts, it took a median of 147.5 days (range 99–195) from initial contact with the local collaborator to recruitment of the first survey participant and hospice sites mirrored these lengthy timescales (median 142 days, range 110–202). The lengthiest delays in the HRA approval process were the period between asking NHS trusts to assess whether they had capacity and capability to support the research and them granting local agreement. Local approval times varied between trusts and settings which may indicate organisations are applying national complex guidance differently. Conclusions: There is the potential for HRA processes to use more NHS resources than the research study itself when recruiting to a low-risk staff study across multiple organisations. There is a need to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and bureaucracy to give clinicians and research staff more opportunities to participate in research, and to free up NHS R&D departments, research nurses and clinicians to focus on more demanding and patient focused research studies. Hospices need standardised guidance on how to assess the risk of being involved in low-risk research without adopting the unnecessarily complex systems that are currently used within the NHS.",
author = "Lesley Dunleavy and Ruth Board and Seamus Coyle and Andrew Dickman and Ellershaw, {John E} and Amy Gadoud and Jaime Halvorsen and Nick Hulbert-Williams and C.E. Lightbody and Stephen Mason and Amara Nwosu and Andrea Partridge and Sheila Payne and Nancy Preston and Brooke Swash and Vanessa Taylor and Catherine Walshe",
year = "2024",
month = nov,
day = "15",
doi = "10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "BMC",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK?

T2 - Procedures, barriers, and burdens

AU - Dunleavy, Lesley

AU - Board, Ruth

AU - Coyle, Seamus

AU - Dickman, Andrew

AU - Ellershaw, John E

AU - Gadoud, Amy

AU - Halvorsen, Jaime

AU - Hulbert-Williams, Nick

AU - Lightbody, C.E.

AU - Mason, Stephen

AU - Nwosu, Amara

AU - Partridge, Andrea

AU - Payne, Sheila

AU - Preston, Nancy

AU - Swash, Brooke

AU - Taylor, Vanessa

AU - Walshe, Catherine

PY - 2024/11/15

Y1 - 2024/11/15

N2 - Background: Health care staff should be given the opportunity to participate in research, but recruiting clinicians via their employing organisation is not always straightforward or quick in the UK. Unlike many countries outside the UK, very low-risk survey, interview or focus group studies can be subject to some of the same governance approval procedures as interventional studies. An exemplar study carried out by the NIHR funded Palliative Care Research Partnership North West Coast is used to highlight the challenges still faced by researchers and health care organisations when setting up a low-risk staff study across multiple NHS and non-NHS sites. Methods: A study database was created and information was collected on the first point of contact with the clinical site, Health Research Authority (HRA) and local organisational approval times, time from trust or hospice agreement to the first survey participant recruited and overall site survey recruitment numbers. Descriptive statistics (median, range) were used to analyse these data. Results: Across participating NHS trusts, it took a median of 147.5 days (range 99–195) from initial contact with the local collaborator to recruitment of the first survey participant and hospice sites mirrored these lengthy timescales (median 142 days, range 110–202). The lengthiest delays in the HRA approval process were the period between asking NHS trusts to assess whether they had capacity and capability to support the research and them granting local agreement. Local approval times varied between trusts and settings which may indicate organisations are applying national complex guidance differently. Conclusions: There is the potential for HRA processes to use more NHS resources than the research study itself when recruiting to a low-risk staff study across multiple organisations. There is a need to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and bureaucracy to give clinicians and research staff more opportunities to participate in research, and to free up NHS R&D departments, research nurses and clinicians to focus on more demanding and patient focused research studies. Hospices need standardised guidance on how to assess the risk of being involved in low-risk research without adopting the unnecessarily complex systems that are currently used within the NHS.

AB - Background: Health care staff should be given the opportunity to participate in research, but recruiting clinicians via their employing organisation is not always straightforward or quick in the UK. Unlike many countries outside the UK, very low-risk survey, interview or focus group studies can be subject to some of the same governance approval procedures as interventional studies. An exemplar study carried out by the NIHR funded Palliative Care Research Partnership North West Coast is used to highlight the challenges still faced by researchers and health care organisations when setting up a low-risk staff study across multiple NHS and non-NHS sites. Methods: A study database was created and information was collected on the first point of contact with the clinical site, Health Research Authority (HRA) and local organisational approval times, time from trust or hospice agreement to the first survey participant recruited and overall site survey recruitment numbers. Descriptive statistics (median, range) were used to analyse these data. Results: Across participating NHS trusts, it took a median of 147.5 days (range 99–195) from initial contact with the local collaborator to recruitment of the first survey participant and hospice sites mirrored these lengthy timescales (median 142 days, range 110–202). The lengthiest delays in the HRA approval process were the period between asking NHS trusts to assess whether they had capacity and capability to support the research and them granting local agreement. Local approval times varied between trusts and settings which may indicate organisations are applying national complex guidance differently. Conclusions: There is the potential for HRA processes to use more NHS resources than the research study itself when recruiting to a low-risk staff study across multiple organisations. There is a need to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and bureaucracy to give clinicians and research staff more opportunities to participate in research, and to free up NHS R&D departments, research nurses and clinicians to focus on more demanding and patient focused research studies. Hospices need standardised guidance on how to assess the risk of being involved in low-risk research without adopting the unnecessarily complex systems that are currently used within the NHS.

U2 - 10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0

DO - 10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0

M3 - Journal article

VL - 24

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

IS - 1

M1 - 1408

ER -