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.^

Perinatal mortality and quality of care at the National Institute of Perinatology: A 3-year analysis

Quality of medical care has been indirectly assessed through the collection of negative outcomes. A preventable death is one that could have been avoided if optimum care had been offered. The general objective of the present project was to analyze the perinatal mortality at the National Institute of Perinatology (located in Mexico City) by social, biological and some available components of quality of care such as avoidability, provider responsibility, and structure and process deficiencies in the delivery of medical care. A Perinatal Mortality Committee data base was utilized. The study population consisted of all singleton perinatal deaths occurring between January 1, 1988 and June 30, 1991 (n = 522). A proportionate study was designed.^ The population studied mostly corresponded to married young adult mothers, who were residents of urban areas, with an educational level of junior high school or more, two to three pregnancies, and intermediate prenatal care. The mean gestational age at birth was 33.4 $\pm$ 3.9 completed weeks and the mean birthweight at birth was 1,791.9 $\pm$ 853.1 grams.^ Thirty-five percent of perinatal deaths were categorized as avoidable. Postnatal infection and premature rupture of membranes were the most frequent primary causes of avoidable perinatal death. The avoidable perinatal mortality rate was 8.7 per 1000 and significantly declined during the study period (p $<$.05). Preventable perinatal mortality aggregated data suggested that at least part of the mortality decline for amenable conditions was due to better medical care.^ Structure deficiencies were present in 35% of avoidable deaths and process deficiencies were present in 79%. Structure deficiencies remained constant over time. Process deficiencies consisted of diagnosis failures (45.8%) and treatment failures (87.3%), they also remained constant through the years. Party responsibility was as follows: Obstetric (35.4%), pediatric (41.4%), institutional (26.5%), and patient (6.6%). Obstetric responsibility significantly increased during the study period (p $<$.05). Pediatric responsibility declined only for newborns less than 1500 g (p $<$.05). Institutional responsibility remained constant.^ Process deficiencies increased the risk for an avoidable death eightfold (confidence interval 1.7-41.4, p $<$.01) and provider responsibility ninety-fivefold (confidence interval 14.8-612.1, p $<$.001), after adjustment for several confounding variables. Perinatal mortality due to prematurity, barotrauma and nosocomial infection, was highly preventable, but not that due to transpartum asphyxia. Once specific deficiencies in the quality of care have been identified, quality assurance actions should begin. ^