dc.contributor.author | Appleton, Jane | |
dc.contributor.author | Caan, Woody | |
dc.contributor.author | Cowley, Sarah | |
dc.contributor.author | Kendall, S. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-01-03T14:01:10Z | |
dc.date.available | 2012-01-03T14:01:10Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Appleton , J , Caan , W , Cowley , S & Kendall , S 2007 , ' Busting the bureaucracy: lessons from research governance in primary care ' , Community Practitioner , vol. 80 , no. 2 , pp. 29-32 . < http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cp/cp > | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1462-2815 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2299/7542 | |
dc.description.abstract | This paper provides a critical discussion of the research governance approval processes faced in a nationally-funded primary care health service survey. The study is investigating how a range of English primary care organisations are addressing child protection and safeguarding children responsibilities in the light of a wealth of policy directives following publication of the report of Lord Laming's inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié in 2003. The principal investigator is a member of a local research ethics committee and has a good working knowledge of the Research Governance Framework. However, following multi-centre research ethics committee approval, a whole catalogue of difficulties emerged in gaining research governance approval for this study from primary care organisations. These challenges and our lessons for primary care are outlined in an organisational case study with the intention of generating debate around this fundamental stage in the research process. With the current restructuring of primary care, we believe the time is right to streamline research governance procedures. | en |
dc.format.extent | 4 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.relation.ispartof | Community Practitioner | |
dc.subject | Child | |
dc.subject | Child Advocacy | |
dc.subject | Decision Making, Organizational | |
dc.subject | Documentation | |
dc.subject | Ethics Committees, Research | |
dc.subject | Great Britain | |
dc.subject | Guidelines as Topic | |
dc.subject | Health Care Reform | |
dc.subject | Health Services Needs and Demand | |
dc.subject | Humans | |
dc.subject | Multicenter Studies as Topic | |
dc.subject | Nursing Research | |
dc.subject | Organizational Case Studies | |
dc.subject | Organizational Innovation | |
dc.subject | Organizational Policy | |
dc.subject | Peer Review, Research | |
dc.subject | Primary Health Care | |
dc.subject | Research Design | |
dc.subject | Research Support as Topic | |
dc.subject | State Medicine | |
dc.subject | Time Factors | |
dc.title | Busting the bureaucracy: lessons from research governance in primary care | en |
dc.contributor.institution | Health & Human Sciences Research Institute | |
dc.contributor.institution | Department of Adult Nursing and Primary Care | |
dc.contributor.institution | School of Health and Social Work | |
dc.contributor.institution | Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care | |
dc.contributor.institution | Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work | |
dc.contributor.institution | Communities, Young People and Family Lives | |
dc.description.status | Peer reviewed | |
dc.identifier.url | http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cp/cp | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessed | true | |