ACCEPTANCE OF AN INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOA RD (ETHIKKOMMISSION) BY SPECIALIST DOCTORS IN INNSBRUCK HOSPITALS

The work input of an institutional review board, the satisfaction or d issatisfaction of project applicants with its decisions, as well as th e amount of time needed for preparatory and follow-up work for project s submitted to the board were surveyed in a questionnaire. An analysis of the status quo provided proposals for improvement, with the aim of increasing the satisfaction of all parties involved. Questionnaires w ere returned by 41.4% (101/244) of the specialist doctors surveyed. Of these, 42 were doctors who had submitted projects for review and whos e evaluation was used for the study. The proportion of trained ''clini cal review doctors'' was 14.3%. Analysis of work input showed that 13. 5 +/- 15.2 hours were invested before submitting a project and 6.3 +/- 9.3 hours in the follow-up. Although the board's work was given a sat isfactory grading with a score of 2.8 +/- 1.0, the surveyed satisfacti on/importance profile showed marked deficits in many areas, primarily in organization and communication, as well as in the examination and e valuation of projects. The suggestions for improvement above all reque sted the introduction of a review system employing specialists from ou tside the institution or from other disciplines, standardization of pr oject submission, optimization of organization and improvement in comm unication. In summary, the institutional review board plays an importa nt role in cinical research. The acceptance of a review board's work, however, can only be improved when the suggestions for improvement are realized step by step. The results of this evaluation and the propose d solutions can also help other boards improve their work. At any rate , it would be desirable to take a new look in several years' time at h ow the proposals worked out in this study have been implemented.