Skip to main content
Top
Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

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

Authors: Lesley Dunleavy, Ruth Board, Seamus Coyle, Andrew Dickman, John Ellershaw, Amy Gadoud, Jaime Halvorsen, Nick Hulbert-Williams, Liz Lightbody, Stephen Mason, Amara Callistus Nwosu, Andrea Partridge, Sheila Payne, Nancy Preston, Brooke Swash, Vanessa Taylor, Catherine Walshe

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Petrova M, Barclay S. Research approvals iceberg: how a ‘low-key’ study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Petrova M, Barclay S. Research approvals iceberg: how a ‘low-key’ study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Preston N, van Delden JJ, Ingravallo F, Hughes S, Hasselaar J, van der Heide A, et al. Ethical and research governance approval across Europe: experiences from three European palliative care studies. Palliat Med. 2020;34(6):817–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Preston N, van Delden JJ, Ingravallo F, Hughes S, Hasselaar J, van der Heide A, et al. Ethical and research governance approval across Europe: experiences from three European palliative care studies. Palliat Med. 2020;34(6):817–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference McKinley N, McCain RS, Convie L, Clarke M, Dempster M, Campbell WJ, et al. Resilience, burnout and coping mechanisms in UK doctors: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1):e031765.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral McKinley N, McCain RS, Convie L, Clarke M, Dempster M, Campbell WJ, et al. Resilience, burnout and coping mechanisms in UK doctors: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1):e031765.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Johnson S, Dalton-Locke C, Vera San Juan N, Foye U, Oram S, Papamichail A, et al. Impact on mental health care and on mental health service users of the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods survey of UK mental health care staff. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021;56(1):25–37.CrossRefPubMed Johnson S, Dalton-Locke C, Vera San Juan N, Foye U, Oram S, Papamichail A, et al. Impact on mental health care and on mental health service users of the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods survey of UK mental health care staff. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021;56(1):25–37.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Jefferson L, Heathcote C, Bloor K. General practitioner well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2023;13(2):e061531.CrossRefPubMed Jefferson L, Heathcote C, Bloor K. General practitioner well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2023;13(2):e061531.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Walshe C, Dunleavy L, Preston N, Payne S, Ellershaw J, Taylor V, et al. Understanding barriers and facilitators to palliative and end-of-life care research: a mixed method study of generalist and specialist health, social care, and research professionals. BMC Palliat Care. 2024;23(1):159.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Walshe C, Dunleavy L, Preston N, Payne S, Ellershaw J, Taylor V, et al. Understanding barriers and facilitators to palliative and end-of-life care research: a mixed method study of generalist and specialist health, social care, and research professionals. BMC Palliat Care. 2024;23(1):159.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Jünger S, Payne S. The crossover artist: consensus methods in health research. In: Handbook of Theory and Methods in Applied Health Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2020. Jünger S, Payne S. The crossover artist: consensus methods in health research. In: Handbook of Theory and Methods in Applied Health Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2020.
13.
go back to reference Snooks H, Khanom A, Ballo R, Bower P, Checkland K, Ellins J, et al. Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):1119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Snooks H, Khanom A, Ballo R, Bower P, Checkland K, Ellins J, et al. Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):1119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Department of Health and Social Care. UK Clinical Research Delivery Key Performance Indicators Report. 2024. Department of Health and Social Care. UK Clinical Research Delivery Key Performance Indicators Report. 2024.
17.
go back to reference Department of Health and Social Care. Research Reset Status Report. 2023. Department of Health and Social Care. Research Reset Status Report. 2023.
18.
go back to reference Office for Life Sciences. Commercial clinical trials in the UK: the Lord O’Shaughnessy review - final report. GOV.UK: Office for Life Sciences; 2023. Office for Life Sciences. Commercial clinical trials in the UK: the Lord O’Shaughnessy review - final report. GOV.UK: Office for Life Sciences; 2023.
Metadata
Title
Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens
Authors
Lesley Dunleavy
Ruth Board
Seamus Coyle
Andrew Dickman
John Ellershaw
Amy Gadoud
Jaime Halvorsen
Nick Hulbert-Williams
Liz Lightbody
Stephen Mason
Amara Callistus Nwosu
Andrea Partridge
Sheila Payne
Nancy Preston
Brooke Swash
Vanessa Taylor
Catherine Walshe
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0