Research on the supervision registers: Inconsistencies in local research ethics committee responses

Abstract

This article examines the responses of twelve local research ethics committees to a proposal to carry out a study on the supervision registers using case-note material, and does so in the context of the controversies surrounding the supervision registers and the most recent Department of Health and professional guidelines on the ethics of using case-note material for research purposes. Local research ethics committee responses to the proposal varied starkly, and ranged from approval through chairman's action to outright refusal. The main stated reasons for refusing permission for the study were failure to obtain patient consent to use case-notes, although all guidelines recommended that case-note studies do not require patient consent. Possible reasons for refusal to approve the study are examined in the context of published ethical guidelines and specific concerns about the supervision registers themselves. It is recommended that guidelines be issued to local research ethics committees, provider units and psychiatrists regarding the ethics of research on the supervision registers, particularly when the research involves the identification of patients on the registers. More generally, this paper lends support to the argument for a national ethics committee, particularly in the case of multi-centre studies.