IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0146334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital

Author

Listed:
  • Sharmila V Jalgaonkar
  • Shruti S Bhide
  • Raakhi K Tripathi
  • Yashashri C Shetty
  • Padmaja A Marathe
  • Janhavi Katkar
  • Urmila M Thatte

Abstract

Protocol deviations (PDs) may jeopardize safety, rights, and welfare of subjects and data integrity. There is scarce literature and no guidelines for Institutional Ethics Committees (IECs) to process PD reports. The PD reports submitted to IECs from Jan 2011 to August 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. Types of studies reporting PDs, category and type of PDs, PD rate per participant, time of reporting PD since its occurrence and corrective actions stated by principal investigator (PI) for major deviations were noted. Out of 447 PDs from 73/1387 total studies received during study period, 402 were from 126 pharma studies. Investigator initiated studies and dissertations reported negligible PDs. Median number of PDs was 4 per protocol. Out of 447 PDs, 304 were related to study procedure, 87, 47 and 9 were from safety, informed consent document (ICD) and eligibility category respectively. The most common reason for PDs was incomplete ICD (22/47). Maximum study procedure related PDs were due to patient visiting outside window period (126/304). Thirty five of 87 PDs were due to missed safety assessment. The overall PD reporting rate per participant was 0.08. In 90% of reports, date of occurrence of PD was not specified. The median delay for reporting PDs after occurrence was 94 days. PDs classified as Major were 73% (323/447). The most common corrective actions stated by PI were participant counseling (85/323) and caution in future (70/323). The study findings emphasize the need for GCP training at regular interval of study team members. IEC have to be vigilant and visit sites frequently, take initiative and formulate guidelines regarding PD reporting.

Suggested Citation

  • Sharmila V Jalgaonkar & Shruti S Bhide & Raakhi K Tripathi & Yashashri C Shetty & Padmaja A Marathe & Janhavi Katkar & Urmila M Thatte, 2016. "An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146334
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146334
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146334&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0146334?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146334. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.