Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly | ISSN 2206-2483

Nobody expects…

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Human Research Ethics
on April 26, 2021
0 Comments
Keywords Ethical review,Good practice,Institutional Responsibilities,Participant protection,Researcher responsibilities,Respect for persons
A kneeling 3d figure looking through a magnifying glass down at a 3d question mark.

the Spanish Inquisition Human Research Ethics audit

Dr Gary Allen

When research with current ethics approval is periodically monitored,[1] it is typically a passive process.  Institutions, often via their research ethics administration, will ask researchers to self-report on the continued ethical acceptability of a project (and compliance with any conditions of approval).  It would not be unreasonable to conclude that self-reporting is not the most effective way to identify if there have been problems with approved projects.  Indeed, if things have gone wrong, it is at least possible that the most troublesome researchers might not be entirely honest about what has happened or why.

So, what is the alternative?

Conducting random audits of a small number of active projects can be a great way to obtain a snapshot of what is actually happening with approved research.

This need not be a statistically significant number of projects to be effective. The impact should be felt further than the projects actually being audited. The mere fact that researchers are on notice that they might be audited could have a positive impact of researchers realising that the committee will be interested in their project beyond the initial research ethics review. This can be achieved by placing a note in all research ethics forms that the project might be selected for audit. Those researchers who are audited may also tell their colleagues they were selected for random audit.

The audit process should be run in a way that it clear to researchers that they will have opportunities to provide feedback on their institution’s human research ethics arrangements. The annual report from the HREC to the institution should include a special section to provide feedback flowing from that year’s audits.

AHRECS suggests institutions establish a formula to determine which projects could be audited.  For example:

  1. Project has an active ethics approval.
  2. Project has been running for at least for 12 months.
  3. Project still has at least six month to run.
  4. One project from each faculty/group/division/unit.

From each pool of projects chosen, at least one project should be randomly selected.

We have placed on https://www.ahrecs.vip and https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs an example of an audit operating procedure, in the next few weeks will post an audit report proforma.  This is not intended to be a prescriptive template, just an example.

Here are some tips on how to make the most of research ethics audits:

  1. Audits should be conducted by a small panel of HREC members. This is an additional task and should be approached as such – for example, members who volunteer to participate in an audit should receive workload points or funds towards external professional development (perhaps even in human research ethics or research integrity).
  2. The HREC/research office should expect the institution to fund this kind of active monitoring.
  3. To make the audit 365 degrees, audited researchers should be invited to share reflections on the research ethics review process and the institution’s resources and guidance material.
  4. If the selected project is student research, both the student and the supervisory team should participate in the audit.
  5. If the institution has proportional or delegated review, a useful way to deploy the audit process might be to check the project was reviewed by the correct pathway and gave useful feedback. The intent here is not to re-run the review, but to assess if the review system is functioning properly.
  6. If a HREC is already concerned about a project and/or researcher, they might purposely select the relevant project for review.
  7. This mechanism might also be used to audit a batch of projects in response to a breach/complaint/serious adverse event.
  8. Redacted and aggregated results of the audit should be reported to academic governance

NOTES

[1] Even a cursory review of the NHMRC’s reports suggests a significant proportion of institutions struggle to elicit an annual report from all researchers.

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G. (26 April) Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition Human Research Ethics audit. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/nobody-expects/

Related reading

Friday afternoon funny – How (not) to respond to an audit

Why human research ethics and research integrity aren’t fire blankets

Going video: A chance to change review practice?

A poor call and two missed opportunities, but otherwise not a bad proposed revision to NS s5

Worried your researchers might not be treating human research ethics as a core component of good research practice? Concerned they are not seeing it as their responsibility?

Lost time may never be found again but is it time to talk about the duration of ethics approvals?

Smarter proportional research ethics review

Proportional processes can sometimes be the answer to a few (apparently competing) problems

Monitoring research is too important to be optional and too resource intensive to be manual

Institutional approaches to evaluative practice

REAlising a collegiate Research Ethics Adviser network

Resourcing reflective practice – whiteboard video

Do scientists need audits? (Papers: Viraj Mane and Amy Lossie 2015)

The seductive peril of precedent-based decision making

Griffith University Research Ethics Manual (GUREM)

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Corresponding Author

Dr Gary Allen

Sp-user Link
https://www.ahrecs.com/senior-consultants/gary-allen
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Sp-mail User

About the blog

The senior consultants started AHRECS in 2007. We were looking for a way of responding to requests for advice on research ethics and integrity from the government, health and education sectors read more…

Comment rules

We decided to include comment functionality in the Blog because we want to encourage the Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics communities to contribute to public discourse about resourcing and improving practice. read more…

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A smiling group of multi-racial researchers

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in