Log in with your email address username.

×

Important notice

doctorportal Learning is on the move as we will be launching a new website very shortly. If you would like to sign up to dp Learning now to register for CPD learning or to use our CPD tracker, please email support@doctorportal.com.au so we can assist you. If you are already signed up to doctorportal Learning, your login will work in the new site so you can continue to enrol for learning, complete an online module, or access your CPD tracker report.

To access and/or sign up for other resources such as Jobs Board, Bookshop or InSight+, please go to www.mja.com.au, or click the relevant menu item and you will be redirected.

All other doctorportal services, such as Find A Doctor, are no longer available.

Ethics and compliance hurdles in conducting multicentre low-risk research

- Featured Image

It is over 10 years since Roberts and colleagues1 highlighted difficulties in conducting research across multiple sites. However, the process still remains complex. Our study involved a retrospective data review (2012–2013) across multiple Australian public hospital pharmacy departments to identify the extent of compounding of pharmaceutical products at each site. With no requirement for patient participation (or for patient health details), the project was classified as low or negligible risk. The only participants involved were pharmacists who were provided with the opportunity to raise any concerns related to compounding practices. Ethics approval was obtained from the host university, and from a South Australian hospital site. Despite this, the pathway to gaining ethics approval from the other public hospitals involved multiple procedures.

Gaining ethics approval at one ethics committee involves effort, but in multicentre research projects, the effort is multiplied with non-concordant approval requirements. Extensive paperwork, the need for a local contact person at each site and the delay in obtaining signatures from departmental heads were the major issues, despite utilising the researchers’ professional networks. Human research ethics committee (HREC) meeting schedules varied from 1 to 2 months, with little flexibility to accept proposals if an agenda was full.

After 6 months’…

email