Access to medical records for research purposes: varying perceptions across research ethics boards
- 28 March 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Medical Ethics
- Vol. 34 (4) , 308-314
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2006.020032
Abstract
Introduction: Variation across research ethics boards (REBs) in conditions placed on access to medical records for research purposes raises concerns around negative impacts on research quality and on human subject protection, including privacy. Aim: To study variation in REB consent requirements for retrospective chart review and who may have access to the medical record for data abstraction. Methods: Thirty 90-min face-to-face interviews were conducted with REB chairs and administrators affiliated with faculties of medicine in Canadian universities, using structured questions around a case study with open-ended responses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded manually. Results: Fourteen sites (47%) required individual patient consent for the study to proceed as proposed. Three (10%) indicated that their response would depend on how potentially identifying variables would be managed. Eleven sites (38%) did not require consent. Two (7%) suggested a notification and opt-out process. Most stated that consent would be required if identifiable information was being abstracted from the record. Among those not requiring consent, there was substantial variation in recognising that the abstracted information could potentially indirectly re-identify individuals. Concern over access to medical records by an outside individual was also associated with requirement for consent. Eighteen sites (60%) required full committee review. Sixteen (53%) allowed an external research assistant to abstract information from the health record. Conclusions: Large variation was found across sites in the requirement for consent for research involving access to medical records. REBs need training in best practices for protecting privacy and confidentiality in health research. A forum for REB chairs to confidentially share concerns and decisions about specific studies could also reduce variation in decisions.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Alternatives to Project-specific Consent for Access to Personal Information for Health Research: What Is the Opinion of the Canadian Public?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2007
- A qualitative study of institutional review board members’ experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consentJournal of Medical Ethics, 2007
- Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison: Table 1Journal of Medical Ethics, 2006
- Review of a mock research protocol in functional neuroimaging by Canadian research ethics boardsJournal of Medical Ethics, 2006
- Governance of research that uses identifiable personal dataBMJ, 2006
- Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional studyBMJ, 2004
- Problematic Variation in Local Institutional Review of a Multicenter Genetic Epidemiology StudyJAMA, 2003
- The Effect of the New Federal Medical-Privacy Rule on ResearchNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- The Threat to Medical-Records ResearchNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997
- Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees.Journal of Medical Ethics, 1996