Although injuries are not per se a reportable event (unless they also meet the definition of a unanticipated problem), the SMART IRB Agreement specifically calls out research-related injuries as needing to be reported to the Reviewing IRB because many institutions view injuries as inherently significant enough that the IRB should know about them and make the judgment call about whether they constitute unanticipated problems, rather than leaving sole judgment of whether an injury needs to be reported to the study investigator.
Articles in this section
- What laws and regulations must the Reviewing IRB consider?
- What constitutes a significant subject complaint that must be reported to the Reviewing IRB?
- Who is responsible for addressing a subject's complaint?
- If one of the Relying Institutions does not submit the necessary information for continuing review in advance of the expiration date, will all Relying Institutions be affected?
- If the Reviewing IRB requests an audit of a study conducted at a Relying Institution, will the Relying Institution receive documentation that the audit was conducted, regardless of the result?
- Why does the SMART IRB Agreement require Relying Institutions to report research-related injuries if the events do not also represent unanticipated problems?
- Who is informed when the Reviewing IRB makes a determination of serious and/or continuing noncompliance or suspends or terminates a study?
- What if an amendment could be affected by state law or other local institutional requirements?
- How is it ensured that all study teams are aware of new amendments and know when the Reviewing IRB has approved them?
- Does the Relying Institution have a role in the review of amendments (changes of protocol)?