Research ethics committee audit: Differences between committees

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 78-82

  Redshaw, M E ^a   Harris, A ^a   Baum, J D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Audit; LRECs; Neonatal care

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NEWBORN CARE; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; STANDARDIZATION; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0029876324     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.22.2.78     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Department of Health and Social Security. Guidelines for research ethics committees. London: DHSS, 1975.
2. Department of Health and Social Security. Local research ethics committees: draft health circular. London: DHSS, 1989.
3. Royal College of Physicians. Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research involving human subjects. London: RCP, 1990.
4. Neuberger J. Ethics and health care: the role of research ethics committees, in the United Kingdom. Research report no 13. London: Kings Fund, 1992.
5. Moran J. Local research ethics committees. Report of the 2nd national conference. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians. 1992; 26, 4: 423-31.
6. Department of Health. Local research ethics committees, HSG (91) 5, August. London: DOH, 1991.
7. Smith J. New guidelines for British ethics committees. British Medical Journal. 1991; 303: 488.
8. Moodie P. The role of local research ethics committees: maintaining the pressure for improvement. British Medical Journal 1992; 304: 1129-30.
9. Redshaw M, Harris A, Ingram J. Delivering neonatal care: the neonatal unit as a working environment. 1995, London: HMSO, 1996.
10. Berry T, Ades TE, Peckham CS. Too many ethical committees. British Medical Journal. 1990; 301: 1274.
11. Penn ZT, Steer P. Local research ethics committees: hindrance or help? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1995; 102: 1-2.
12. Moodie P, Marshall T. Guidelines for local research ethics committees. British Medical Journal. 1992; 304: 1293-5.
13. Harding T, Ummel M. Evaluating the work of ethical review committee: an observation and a suggestion. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1989; 15: 191-4.
14. Middle C, Johnson A, Petty T, Sims L, Macfarlane A. Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience. British Medical Journal. 1995; 311: 659-60.
15. Meade TW. The trouble with ethics committees. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians. 1984; 28: 102-4.
16. Gilbert C, Fulford KWM, Parker C. Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees. British Medical Journal. 1989; 299: 1437-9
17. Lock S Monitoring research ethical committees. Brtish Medical Journal. 1990; 300: 51-2.
18. Lock S. Towards a national bioethics committee. British Medical Journal. 1990; 300: 1149-50.
19. Garfield P. Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees. British Medical Journal. 1995; 311: 660-1.
20. While AE. Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards? British Medical Journal. 1995; 311: 661.