Rebuilding a research ethics committee

The principal ethics committee in Australia's Capital, Canberra, underwent a major revision in the last three years based on changes debated in the literature. Committee or Board structure varies widely; regulations determining minimum size and membership differ between countries. Issues such as the effectiveness of committee management, consumption of paper, timelines for review, and causes of delay were key issues for improvement. Several new practices were" adopted, the first being a subcommittee to manage the review of low or minimal risk projects, successfully relieving the workload of the main committee. Adoption of electronic processes and documentation resulted in less paper, more streamlined review and sharing of applications. Effective time management for meeting schedules, electronic coordination of meeting agenda items and protocol distribution for review successfully reduced delays in reviews. Assigning lead members for all ethical reviews strengthened committee function by sharing out agenda items, allowing committee members to focus on specific protocols. Ready communication with researchers is an intrinsic and highly successful part of committee practice. There appears to be advantage in central allocation of projects for review, but the local input from boards or committees brings great value. The rebuilding of the ACT committee has improved both process efficiency and relationships with researchers.