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

Dunleavy, Lesley and Board, Ruth and Coyle, Seamus and Dickman, Andrew and Ellershaw, John E and Gadoud, Amy and Halvorsen, Jaime and Hulbert-Williams, Nick and Lightbody, C.E. and Mason, Stephen and Nwosu, Amara and Partridge, Andrea and Payne, Sheila and Preston, Nancy and Swash, Brooke and Taylor, Vanessa and Walshe, Catherine (2024) Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? : Procedures, barriers, and burdens. BMC Health Services Research, 24 (1): 1408. ISSN 1472-6963

Text (BMC HSR PalCaRe NWC Approvals article AAM 6.11.24)
BMC_HSR_PalCaRe_NWC_Approvals_article_AAM_6.11.24.docx - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (281kB)

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.