One stop or full stop? The continuing challenges for researchers despite the new streamlined NHS research governance process.
BACKGROUND
Obtaining the necessary approvals and permission for clinical research requires successful negotiation of the ethical and R&D layers of the NHS. Differences in structure and governance frameworks feature between the constituent nations of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), which adds complexity to cross-national studies. Difficulties in carrying out research in the NHS in the UK due to bureaucratic and time-consuming governance processes have led to the development of a new system of application and co-ordination from 2009. This paper illustrates how this new system fails to be consistent and streamlined and is unlikely to become so unless changes are made to the implementation and management of the governance processes.


METHODS
We present a case study of the research governance process at the survey stage of an investigation into the use, preferences and need for information by people making choices or decisions about health care. The method involved home-based, face-to-face interviewing in a questionnaire survey in relation to decisions about lymphoma treatment, Down's syndrome screening in pregnancy, and caring for people with dementia.


RESULTS
Our experience of the ethics stage was very positive, noting an efficient process of application and a speedy decision, both in relation to the initial application and to subsequent substantial amendments. By contrast, the R&D stages were very slow, most with unexplained delays, but some offering contradictory advice and exhibiting a lack of clear guidance and training for NHS staff. The R&D arrangements in Scotland were far quicker and more likely to be successful than in England. Overall, the delays were so severe that substantial parts of the research could not be delivered as planned within the funding timescale.


CONCLUSIONS
If high-quality research in the NHS, particularly in England, is to be delivered in a timely and cost-effective way, R&D processes for gaining research governance approval need improvement. Attention is needed in process implementation and management, particularly in relation to staff training, as well as clarity in guidance and communication within and between organisations.
Thompson
Andrew G H
AG
Politics and International Relations, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Chrystal Macmillan Building, 15A George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LD, UK.
France
Emma F
EF
D000328:Adult; D001294:Attitude to Health; D054976:Clinical Governance / Q000458:organization & administration*; D017598:Efficiency, Organizational; D004739:England; D005260:Female; D006301:Health Services Needs and Demand; D006302:Health Services Research / Q000458:organization & administration*; D006801:Humans; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D011247:Pregnancy; D012108:Research Personnel; D012606:Scotland; D013222:State Medicine / Q000458:organization & administration*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
BMJ. 2005 Apr 9;330(7495):847
15817562
J Adv Nurs. 2002 Nov;40(4):379-86
12421396
Health Law J. 2004;12:159-81
16539080
Community Pract. 2007 Feb;80(2):29-32
17330671
BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):140-1
14726341
Med J Aust. 2006 Mar 20;184(6):261-3
16548827
J R Soc Med. 2008 Jun;101(6):299-304
18515777
Med Health Care Philos. 2008 Dec;11(4):381-91
18633729
Nurs Ethics. 2002 Jan;9(1):105-9
16010903
J Health Organ Manag. 2007;21(1):59-67
17455813
Soc Sci Med. 2000 Sep;51(6):969-77
10972439
J R Soc Med. 2009 May;102(5):195-8
19417052
J R Soc Med. 2007 May;100(5):234-8
17470931
BMJ. 2009 Oct 16;339:b4013
19837743
BMC Public Health. 2008 Nov 28;8:396
19040750
Hastings Cent Rep. 2001 May-Jun;31(3):9-17
11478127