Federally regulated institutional review boards: The aspects of a "model" IRB---Is the current system in need of a tune up or complete overhaul?

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary gatekeepers for the protection of ethical standards of federally regulated research on human subjects in this country. This paper focuses on what general, broad measures that may be instituted or enhanced to exemplify a "model IRB". This is done by examining the current regulatory standards of federally regulated IRBs, not private or commercial boards, and how many of those standards have been found either inadequate or not generally understood or followed. The analysis includes suggestions on how to bring about changes in order to make the IRB process more efficient, less subject to litigation, and create standardized educational protocols for members. The paper also considers how to include better oversight for multi-center research, increased centralization of IRBs, utilization of Data Safety Monitoring Boards when necessary, payment for research protocol review, voluntary accreditation, and the institution of evaluation/quality assurance programs. ^ This is a policy study utilizing secondary analysis of publicly available data. Therefore, the research for this paper focuses on scholarly medical/legal journals, web information from the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Drug Administration, and the Office of the Inspector General, Accreditation Programs, law review articles, and current regulations applicable to the relevant portions of the paper. ^ Two issues are found to be consistently cited by the literature as major concerns. One is a need for basic, standardized educational requirements across all IRBs and its members, and secondly, much stricter and more informed management of continuing research. There is no federally regulated formal education system currently in place for IRB members, except for certain NIH-based trials. Also, IRBs are not keeping up with research once a study has begun, and although regulated to do so, it does not appear to be a great priority. This is the area most in danger of increased litigation. Other issues such as voluntary accreditation and outcomes evaluation are slowing gaining steam as the processes are becoming more available and more sought after, such as JCAHO accrediting of hospitals. ^ Adopting the principles discussed in this paper should promote better use of a local IRBs time, money, and expertise for protecting the vulnerable population in their care. Without further improvements to the system, there is concern that private and commercial IRBs will attempt to create a monopoly on much of the clinical research in the future as they are not as heavily regulated and can therefore offer companies quicker and more convenient reviews. IRBs need to consider the advantages of charging for their unique and important services as a cost of doing business. More importantly, there must be a minimum standard of education for all IRB members in the area of the ethical standards of human research and a greater emphasis placed on the follow-up of ongoing research as this is the most critical time for study participants and may soon lead to the largest area for litigation. Additionally, there should be a centralized IRB for multi-site trials or a study website with important information affecting the trial in real time. There needs to be development of standards and metrics to assess the performance of the IRBs for quality assurance and outcome evaluations. The boards should not be content to run the business of human subjects' research without determining how well that function is actually being carried out. It is important that federally regulated IRBs provide excellence in human research and promote those values most important to the public at large.^

COMPARISON OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INVESTOR-OWNED AND VOLUNTARY MULTIHOSPITAL SECTORS

Objectives. The central objective of this study was to systematically examine the internal structure of multihospital systems, determining the management principles used and the performance levels achieved in medical care and administrative areas.^ The Universe. The study universe consisted of short-term general American hospitals owned and operated by multihospital corporations. Corporations compared were the investor-owned (for-profit) and the voluntary multihospital systems. The individual hospital was the unit of analysis for the study.^ Theoretical Considerations. The contingency theory, using selected aspects of the classical and human relations schools of thought, seemed well suited to describe multihospital organization and was used in this research.^ The Study Hypotheses. The main null hypotheses generated were that there are no significant differences between the voluntary and the investor-owned multihospital sectors in their (1) hospital structures and (2) patient care and administrative performance levels.^ The Sample. A stratified random sample of 212 hospitals owned by multihospital systems was selected to equally represent the two study sectors. Of the sampled hospitals approached, 90.1% responded.^ The Analysis. Sixteen scales were constructed in conjunction with 16 structural variables developed from the major questions and sub-items of the questionnaire. This was followed by analysis of an additional 7 structural and 24 effectiveness (performance) measures, using frequency distributions. Finally, summary statistics and statistical testing for each variable and sub-items were completed and recorded in 38 tables.^ Study Findings. While it has been argued that there are great differences between the two sectors, this study found that with a few exceptions the null hypotheses of no difference in organizational and operational characteristics of non-profit and for-profit hospitals was accepted. However, there were several significant differences found in the structural variables: functional specialization, and autonomy were significantly higher in the voluntary sector. Only centralization was significantly different in the investor owned. Among the effectiveness measures, occupancy rate, cost of data processing, total manhours worked, F.T.E. ratios, and personnel per occupied bed were significantly higher in the voluntary sector. The findings indicated that both voluntary and for-profit systems were converging toward a common hierarchical corporate management approach. Factors of size and management style may be better descriptors to characterize a specific multihospital group than its profit or nonprofit status. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.) ^