It is over 10 years since Roberts and colleagues1 highlighted difficulties in conducting research across multiple sites. However, the process still remains complex. Our study involved a retrospective data review (2012–2013) across multiple Australian public hospital pharmacy departments to identify the extent of compounding of pharmaceutical products at each site. With no requirement for patient participation (or for patient health details), the project was classified as low or negligible risk. The only participants involved were pharmacists who were provided with the opportunity to raise any concerns related to compounding practices. Ethics approval was obtained from the host university, and from a South Australian hospital site. Despite this, the pathway to gaining ethics approval from the other public hospitals involved multiple procedures.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Roberts LM, Bowyer L, Homer CS, Brown MA. Multicentre research: negotiating the ethics approval obstacle course [letter]. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 139. <MJA full text>
- 2. Maxwell DJ, Kaye KI. Multicentre research: negotiating the ethics approval obstacle course [letter]. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 460. <MJA full text>
- 3. Van Der Weyden MB. Multicentre research: negotiating the ethics approval obstacle course [editorial comment]. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 460-461. <MJA full text>
- 4. Hughes BP. Ethics and Compliance – friends or foes? Proceedings of the 2013 Australasian Ethics Network Conference; Nov 2013; Fremantle, Australia.
- 5. Olver I. Push to give cancer patients better access to clinical trial drugs. AM on ABC Radio National; 18 Jun 2015. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4257237.htm (accessed Jul 2015).
No relevant disclosures.