Articles Tagged With:
-
Here are a few risk-benefit examples
As IRBs debate and consider how to assess risks and benefits in research, here are a couple of examples of cases where IRBs made controversial and sometimes opposing decisions.
-
Dig deep when analyzing risks and benefits
When IRBs and investigators deal with risks, they should identify reasonably foreseeable risks and have reasonable precautions to prevent harm.
-
Top IRB findings during accreditation site visits
IRBs and human subjects research protection programs continue to find concerns during site visits in the accreditation process.
-
AAHRPP findings reveal issues IRBs need to address
Each year, human subjects protection programs worldwide prepare for accreditation, making changes and improving processes. Which problems crop up most frequently?
-
Here’s a quick look at the national IRB reliance agreement
A national IRB model was developed to make the review process more efficient and to offer research organizations an alternative to the central IRB model.
-
Experts: NIRB and IRBshare are alternatives to central IRBs
As some IRBs and research institutions seek more efficient ways to achieve quality human research protection during multisite trials, new models have emerged. One of the newest is the National IRB Reliance Initiative.
-
Hospital Consult - June 2015
-
Damage Control Resuscitation
MONOGRAPH: Exsanguinating hemorrhage is one of (if not the) most common preventable cause of death after trauma.
-
Supraventricular Tachycardia: A Review for the Practicing Emergency Physician
Supraventricular tachycardias are a common category of dysrhythmia seen in the emergency setting.
-
TJC: HCOs need to be on alert for HIT problems related to sociotechnical factors
It’s no secret that for all of the efficiencies that health information technology brings to the table, there are also immense challenges that go along with safely using tools that, in many cases, alter workflow, documentation, and the way providers interact with patients. Of particular concern is the potential for patient harm that can result when systems are poorly designed or implemented, raising the possibility that information will be miscommunicated or entered incorrectly.