1 / 28

Human Subjects Protections System Discussion

Human Subjects Protections System Discussion. Samuel J. Tilden SACHRP July 16, 2008. System Challenges for Human Subjects Protection Programs. Oversight system entry Research information use and disclosure Effectiveness/accountability. HSP System Entry. Is it research?

oral
Télécharger la présentation

Human Subjects Protections System Discussion

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. Human Subjects ProtectionsSystem Discussion Samuel J. Tilden SACHRP July 16, 2008

  2. System Challenges for Human Subjects Protection Programs • Oversight system entry • Research information use and disclosure • Effectiveness/accountability

  3. HSP System Entry • Is it research? • Does it involve human subjects? • Is it exempt? • Is institution engaged in it? • Mission creep

  4. Public Law 93-348-July 12, 1974 AN ACT To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a program of National Research Service Awards to assure the continued excellence of biomedical and behavioral research and to provide for the protection of human subjects involved in biomedical and behavioral research and for other purposes. Be in enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. This Act may be cited as the “National Research Act”. TITLE I – BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH TRAINING Short Title Sec. 101. This title may be cited as the “National Research Service Award Act of 1974”. Findings and Declaration of Purpose Sec. 102. (b) It is the purpose of this title to increase the capability of the institutes of the National Institutes of Health and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration to carry out their responsibility of maintaining a superior national program of research into the physical and mental diseases and impairment of man.

  5. Public Law 93-348-July 12, 1974 [88 Stat. 352] INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS; ETHICS GUIDANCE PROGRAM Sec. 212 (a) Park I of title IV of the Public Health Service Act as amended by section 103 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: “INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS; ETHICS GUIDANCE PROGRAM” “Sec. 474. (a) The Secretary shall by regulation require that each entity which applies for a grant or contract under this Act for any project or program which involves the conduct of biomedical or behavioral research involving human subjects submit in or with its application for such grant or contract assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that it has established (in accordance with regulations which the Secretary shall prescribe) a board (to be known as a “Institutional Review Board”) to reviewbiomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects conducted at or sponsored by such entity in order to protect the rights of the human subjects of such research.

  6. PUBLIC LAW 99-158-Nov. 20, 1985 [99 STAT. 820] • Public Law 99-158 99th Congress • An Act • To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the authorities under that Act relating to the National Institutes of Health and National Research Institutes, and for the purposes. • Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, • SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE TO ACT; AND TABLE OF CONTENTS • Short Title – This Act may be cited as the “Health Research Extension Act of 1985”. • Reference to Act. – Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be reference to a section or other provision of the Public Health Service Act.

  7. PUBLIC LAW 99-158-Nov. 20, 1985 [99 STAT. 873] “Part G – General Provisions” “INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS; ETHICS GUIDANCE PROGRAM” “Sec. 491 (a) The Secretary shall by regulation require that each entity which applies for a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this Act for any project or program which involves the conduct of biomedical or behavioral research involving human subjects submit in or with its application for such grant, contract, or cooperative agreement assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that it has established (in accordance with regulations which the Secretary shall prescribe) a board (to be known as an “Institutional Review Board”) to review biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects conducted at or supported by such entity in order to protect the rights of the human subjects or such research.

  8. Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 105 Thursday, May 30, 1974 Title 45 – Public Welfare Subtitle A – Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, General Administration Part 46 – Protection of Human Subjects § 46.1 Applicability (a) The regulations in this part are applicable to all Department of Health, Education, and Welfare grants and contracts supporting research, development, and related activities in which human subjects are involved. Effective date. This part shall become effective on July 1, 1974: Provided, however, That with respect to programs administered by the Office of Education and the National Institute of Education, this part shall become effective upon adoption or implementation in regulations issued by, respectively, the Commissioner of Education and the Director of the National Institute of Education, with the approval of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare

  9. Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 231 – Thursday, November 30, 1978 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of the Secretary Protection of Human Subjects Institutional Review Boards: Report and Recommendations of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research Definitions. For purposes of this report: 1. Scientific research is a formal investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. Comment:A research project generally is described in a protocol that sets forth explicit objectives and formal procedures designed to reach those objectives. The protocol may include therapeutic and other activities intended to benefit the subjects, as well as procedures to evaluate such activities. Research objectives range from understanding normal and abnormal physiological or psychological functions or social phenomena, to evaluating diagnostic, therapeutic or preventative interventions; removal of body tissues or fluids; administration of chemical substances or forms of energy; modification of diet, daily routine or service delivery; alteration of environment; observation; administration of questionnaires or tests; randomization; review of records, etc.

  10. Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 16 – Monday, January 26, 1981 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary 45 CFR Part 46 Final Regulations Amending Basic HHS Policy for the Protection of Human Research Subjects These amendments substantially reduce the scope of the existing HHS regulatory coverage by exempting broad categories of research which normally present little or no risk of harm to subjects. Specifically, the new regulations: (1) Exempt from coverage most social, economic and educational research in which the only involvement of human subjects will be in one or more of the following categories; (a) The use of survey and interview procedures; (b) the observation of public behavior; or (c) the study of data, documents, records and specimens. * * * Although HHS found considerable merit to the suggestion that the regulations should define what is covered …, there might be other categories of research involving significant risk that would be inadvertently exempted from coverage. Nonetheless, HHS recognizes that it may have unintentionally included within its coverage description types of research which should be exempted and for this reasons § 46.101(e) of the final regulations provides for a waiver which can be used to remedy such situations.

  11. Analysis of System Entry • Definition of research is intended to be all inclusive of scientific research • Failure to apply exemptions results in large amounts of no/low risk research to IRB review • Exemption practice by IRBs largely a failure • Practical Result - Any directed scholarly or investigative inquiry involving human subjects is subject to review

  12. Research Information & Technology • Electronic environment • Genetic concerns • National standards • HIPAA • GINA • FDAAA 2007, PL 110-161 • Common rule does not ensure confidentiality (GAO HEHS 99-55)

  13. CR & Privacy 45CFR46.102(f) Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator…obtains… 1. Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or 2. Identifiable private information. Private information includes information about behavior … in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, and information which has been provided for specific purposes by an individual and which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (for example, a medical record). Private information must be individually identifiable (i.e., the identity of the subject is or may readily be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information) …. 45CFR46.111(a) In order to approve research covered by this policy the IRB shall determine that all of the following requirements are satisfied: (7) When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and confidentiality of data.

  14. CR & Confidentiality 45CFR46.101(b)…following categories are exempt… (3) Research involving the use of educational tests (…), etc. if (ii) federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information will be maintained… * * * 45CFR46.116(a) Basic elements of informed consent. (5) A statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying the subject will be maintained; * * * 45 CFR46.117(c) An IRB may waive the requirement for…a signed consent form…if it finds… (1) That the only record linking the subject and the research would be the consent document and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality.

  15. HIPAA & Research • Specific, comprehensive confidentiality provisions • Describes uses and disclosures by covered entities for covered functions (45 CFR 160.103) • Generally permits use and disclosure by CE for T,P,O without authorization • Research (other than some QA,QI) neither T,P,O nor a covered function of a covered entity

  16. HIPAA & Research • Designed to transfer information from healthcare domain into research domain which is not subject to HIPAA provisions • Institutions/IRBs seem to want to superimpose HIPAA confidentiality provisions over CR

  17. Analysis on Information • More specific privacy & confidentiality standards for research information desirable • HIPAA supplies defacto standards despite not having been designed to do so • Results - Research standards for privacy and confidentiality are feasible and necessary

  18. Proportional Model of HSP Review > MR IRB Review Intervention Research Privacy & Confidentiality Regs. Expedited IRB review MR Research Involving HumanSubjects > MR IRB Review Approved HSR Project Interaction MR Consent review No Intervention/ Interaction Waiver of consent review

  19. Effectiveness/Accountability • National Commission recommended single Departmental office (i.e. OHRP equivalent) appropriately resourced • Accredit IRBs • Monitor IRB compliance • Provide IRB education • Focus on improving performance • Presidential Commission recommended same

  20. Effectiveness/Accountability • OIG Recommendations • Eliminate or lessen specific procedural requirements that are of questionable value • Require IRBs undergo regular performance-focused evaluations • More on-site visits, inspections, and educational sessions • Less reliance on assurances, incidents, and complaints

  21. Effectiveness/Accountability • Compliance designed to prevent and detect harm with the emphasis on prevention • Key steps involves iterative methodology • Establish process identifying both key & critical intermediate steps • Assessment of outcome and intermediate steps • Correct, improve and simplify • Accreditation not enough without OHRP

  22. Total OHRP $* * Not adjusted for inflation

  23. Percent S&B $ vs. Non-S&B $

  24. OHRP FTEs* * Includes 2 administrative support FTEs outside of OHRP

  25. OHRP Non-S&B and Carryover $

  26. SACHRP $* * Does not include OHRP S&B

  27. Unfunded or Under-funded Activities in 2008 Current Activities • Meetings of SACHRP or SACHRP subcommittee • Further development and maintenance of a database for compliance information • Not for cause compliance site visits (domestic and international) • QA workshops • International • New Activities Equivalent protection determinations (est. 5 FTEs)

  28. The End

More Related