1 / 20

BeyondCompliance

BeyondCompliance. The Role of Institutional Culture in PromotingResearchIntegrity Gail Geller, ScD, MHS Alison Boyce, MA Jeremy Sugarman, MD, MPH, MA Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. ICTR Grant #101872. Overview. Background Description and findingsfromproject

pricedavid
Download Presentation

BeyondCompliance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. BeyondCompliance The Role of Institutional Culture in PromotingResearchIntegrity Gail Geller, ScD, MHS Alison Boyce, MA Jeremy Sugarman, MD, MPH, MA Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics ICTR Grant #101872

  2. Overview • Background • Description and findingsfromproject • Implications for a research agenda

  3. BackgroundT.I.E.S: Trust, Integrity, and Ethics in Science Yarborough M, Fryer-Edwards K, Geller G, Sharp RR. Transforming The Culture Of Biomedical Research From Compliance To `Trustworthiness’: Insights From Nonmedical Sectors. Acad Med 2009;84: 472-477. Conference: Airline industry Meat industry Nuclear power industry Jurisprudence Literature Review: Patient safety

  4. BackgroundInsights from T.I.E.S Enhancing trustworthiness depends on improving relationships and accountability Internal relationships are as important as external ones To improve internal relationships, minimize hierarchy: “We’re all in this together” To improve accountability: Maximize openness “Communication is often neither sufficiently open nor blame-free” Transcend compliance: “You can follow all the rules and still not get it right”

  5. Background: Culture of SafetyHudson, P. Applying the lessons of high-risk industries to health care. Qual Safe Health Care. 2003; 12: i7-i12. Generative Proactive Calculative Reactive Application to Pathological biomedical research?

  6. BackgroundLiterature on organizational culture and research integrity • NIH needs assessment (2001) • ORI (2002) and IOM (2002) reports • Anderson et al., 2007; Ferguson et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2007; Martinson et al., 2006; DeVries et al., 2007 • Commentary & Theoretical work • E.g. Rhodes & Strain, 2004

  7. BackgroundHopkins CTSA Research Ethics Achievement Program (REAP) – Berman Institute of Bioethics Needs Assessment

  8. Methods Phase I: Surveys ICTR Research retreat Research staff lunchtime talk Nurses: retreat and clinical unit Phase II: Course on Research Ethics Course evaluations, small groups Phase III: In-depth discussions with senior research personnel Semi-structured, one-on-one meetings

  9. Findings: Safety and openness in clinical vs. research settings

  10. Surveys: Qualitative Data Perceived discrepancies in competencies by position in hierarchy Staff: “insufficient PI involvement [in conducting the research] and lack of study coordinator’s medical knowledge” Staff: “lack of understanding of protocols by protocol coordinator” PI: “[I’m concerned about] students doing international research”

  11. C.O.R.E. EvaluationsPerceived Discrepancies in Need for Training and Oversight Faculty: “I was familiar with the material” Fellow: “Faculty should be required to attend the second half” Fellow: “All members of research team should be encouraged to take this course” Faculty: “I will supervise my students and staff more closely”

  12. Discussions with Senior Research Personnel Discrepancy in who is responsible for what? • Most regulatory officials think that investigators are responsible for compliance. • A few IRB chairs think the IRB is responsible for compliance. • “The only rule that investigators need to remember is to adhere to their approved protocol…everything else is the IRBs job.”

  13. C.O.R.E. EvaluationsAccountability: Maximizing openness “(A group of fellows only) is a great venue to ask open questions without fear of punishment or humiliation” Reporting problems “comes at a huge personal loss”

  14. C.O.R.E. EvaluationsAccountability: Transcending compliance “Relationships with the IRB can feel adversarial, not like a partnership” “sometimes the institution gets mired in detail and loses sight of what’s important”

  15. Discussions with Senior Research Personnel Relationships: Minimizing hierarchy • The IO controls the research ethics climate • The IRB chairs want more control in deciding how the IRB operates • Who serves on the IRB and for how long

  16. Towards a future research agenda

  17. Insights from our project Empirical support for T.I.E.S. recommendations and questions/hypotheses for future research • How can we strengthen confidence/perceived competence between those at different levels in the hierarchy? • Would redressing power differentials in the hierarchical structure help to reduce the ‘culture of compliance’ and fears of retribution? • Would more open and blame-free communication encourage accountability?

  18. Toward a future research agenda Overcome limitations of a single-institution study with small sample sizes Conduct national study through the CTSA Consortium to: Develop measures for assessing progress with regard to an internal culture of trustworthiness Validate findings

  19. Thanks to: • Daniel Ford • Mark Hughes • David Levine • REAP: • Jeremy Sugarman • Mary Catherine-Beach • Joseph Carrese • Nancy Kass • Debra Mathews • Marie Nolan • Holly Taylor • Peter Terry • Larry Wissow • TIES • Patient Safety group • Brian Sexton • Lori Paine • Daniel Doyle • ICTR/Berman Institute of Bioethics • JHU participants

More Related