Variability in Institutional Board Review for a Multisite Assessment of Resident Professionalism

Judith A. Linden, Jeffrey I. Schneider, Andrea Cotter, Sabrina Drexel, Emily Jane Frosch, Niels D. Martin, Colleen Canavan, Matthew Holtman, Patricia M. Mitchell, James A. Feldman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Residents serve as both trainees and employees and can be considered potentially vulnerable research participants. This can lead to variation in the institutional review board (IRB) review. We studied sites participating in the Assessment of Professional Behaviors Study sponsored by the National Board of Medical Examiners (2009-2011). Of the 19 sites, all but one were university affiliated. IRB review varied; 2/19 did not submit to a local IRB, 4/17 (23%) were exempt, 11/17 (65%) were expedited, and 2/17 (12%) required full Board review; 12/17 (71%) required written informed consent. The interval from submission to approval was 1 to 2 months (8/17); the range was 1 to 7 months. Although most stated there were no major barriers to approval, the most common concern was resident coercion and loss of confidentiality. Local IRB review of this educational research study varied.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)117-125
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2019

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
resident
study behavior
medical examiner
educational research
trainee
employee
Coercion
Coroners and Medical Examiners
university
Confidentiality
Informed Consent
Research
professionalism
Professionalism
Personnel

Keywords

  • graduate medical education
  • institutional review boards
  • medical professionalism
  • research ethics committees

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Education
  • Communication

Cite this

Variability in Institutional Board Review for a Multisite Assessment of Resident Professionalism. / Linden, Judith A.; Schneider, Jeffrey I.; Cotter, Andrea; Drexel, Sabrina; Frosch, Emily Jane; Martin, Niels D.; Canavan, Colleen; Holtman, Matthew; Mitchell, Patricia M.; Feldman, James A.

In: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Vol. 14, No. 2, 01.04.2019, p. 117-125.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Linden, JA, Schneider, JI, Cotter, A, Drexel, S, Frosch, EJ, Martin, ND, Canavan, C, Holtman, M, Mitchell, PM & Feldman, JA 2019, 'Variability in Institutional Board Review for a Multisite Assessment of Resident Professionalism', Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619831895
Linden, Judith A. ; Schneider, Jeffrey I. ; Cotter, Andrea ; Drexel, Sabrina ; Frosch, Emily Jane ; Martin, Niels D. ; Canavan, Colleen ; Holtman, Matthew ; Mitchell, Patricia M. ; Feldman, James A. / Variability in Institutional Board Review for a Multisite Assessment of Resident Professionalism. In: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2019 ; Vol. 14, No. 2. pp. 117-125.
@article{b49f6be85a8c4533b5199f3b8f47db1b,
title = "Variability in Institutional Board Review for a Multisite Assessment of Resident Professionalism",
abstract = "Residents serve as both trainees and employees and can be considered potentially vulnerable research participants. This can lead to variation in the institutional review board (IRB) review. We studied sites participating in the Assessment of Professional Behaviors Study sponsored by the National Board of Medical Examiners (2009-2011). Of the 19 sites, all but one were university affiliated. IRB review varied; 2/19 did not submit to a local IRB, 4/17 (23{\%}) were exempt, 11/17 (65{\%}) were expedited, and 2/17 (12{\%}) required full Board review; 12/17 (71{\%}) required written informed consent. The interval from submission to approval was 1 to 2 months (8/17); the range was 1 to 7 months. Although most stated there were no major barriers to approval, the most common concern was resident coercion and loss of confidentiality. Local IRB review of this educational research study varied.",
keywords = "graduate medical education, institutional review boards, medical professionalism, research ethics committees",
author = "Linden, {Judith A.} and Schneider, {Jeffrey I.} and Andrea Cotter and Sabrina Drexel and Frosch, {Emily Jane} and Martin, {Niels D.} and Colleen Canavan and Matthew Holtman and Mitchell, {Patricia M.} and Feldman, {James A.}",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1556264619831895",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "117--125",
journal = "Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics",
issn = "1556-2646",
publisher = "University of California Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variability in Institutional Board Review for a Multisite Assessment of Resident Professionalism

AU - Linden, Judith A.

AU - Schneider, Jeffrey I.

AU - Cotter, Andrea

AU - Drexel, Sabrina

AU - Frosch, Emily Jane

AU - Martin, Niels D.

AU - Canavan, Colleen

AU - Holtman, Matthew

AU - Mitchell, Patricia M.

AU - Feldman, James A.

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - Residents serve as both trainees and employees and can be considered potentially vulnerable research participants. This can lead to variation in the institutional review board (IRB) review. We studied sites participating in the Assessment of Professional Behaviors Study sponsored by the National Board of Medical Examiners (2009-2011). Of the 19 sites, all but one were university affiliated. IRB review varied; 2/19 did not submit to a local IRB, 4/17 (23%) were exempt, 11/17 (65%) were expedited, and 2/17 (12%) required full Board review; 12/17 (71%) required written informed consent. The interval from submission to approval was 1 to 2 months (8/17); the range was 1 to 7 months. Although most stated there were no major barriers to approval, the most common concern was resident coercion and loss of confidentiality. Local IRB review of this educational research study varied.

AB - Residents serve as both trainees and employees and can be considered potentially vulnerable research participants. This can lead to variation in the institutional review board (IRB) review. We studied sites participating in the Assessment of Professional Behaviors Study sponsored by the National Board of Medical Examiners (2009-2011). Of the 19 sites, all but one were university affiliated. IRB review varied; 2/19 did not submit to a local IRB, 4/17 (23%) were exempt, 11/17 (65%) were expedited, and 2/17 (12%) required full Board review; 12/17 (71%) required written informed consent. The interval from submission to approval was 1 to 2 months (8/17); the range was 1 to 7 months. Although most stated there were no major barriers to approval, the most common concern was resident coercion and loss of confidentiality. Local IRB review of this educational research study varied.

KW - graduate medical education

KW - institutional review boards

KW - medical professionalism

KW - research ethics committees

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062822024&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062822024&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1556264619831895

DO - 10.1177/1556264619831895

M3 - Article

C2 - 30866723

AN - SCOPUS:85062822024

VL - 14

SP - 117

EP - 125

JO - Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

JF - Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

SN - 1556-2646

IS - 2

ER -