Table 2.

Application of an emergency ethics review process triggered by declaration of public emergency

Procedural requirements that may be altered	Procedures that may increase diligence	Factors relevant to diligence and speed of review
REB membership
Variable number of reviewers Public representation changes according to the issues raised in protocol Expertise of reviewer varies by protocol	Redundancy of review Multiple perspectives	Complexity of protocol Assessment of risk
Review time
Time to initiate review occurs within hours of receipt of protocol Time to carry out the review changes according to the issues raised in protocol Streamlined format for communicating with researcher decreases waiting time	Prioritization of relevant protocols Reduction of competing demands on REB members	Urgency of the proposed research Risk–benefit ratio
Assignment burden for reviewers
Expert reviewers review only protocols directly related to their expertise so that overall burden of review may be reduced	Reduction of competing demands on REB members	Complexity of protocol Urgency of the research
Meeting format
Face-to-face or virtual depending on availability of reviewers or physical limitations imposed by the emergency	Redundancy of reviewers Multiple perspectives	Complexity of the emergency Urgency of research
Scientific peer review
May or may not be needed depending on what review has already occurred	Assessment of value and validity	Risk of protocol to participants Complexity of protocol Controversial nature of proposal
Monitoring
May be increased where risk is high or uncertain	Ongoing assessment of risks and benefits	Complexity of protocols Difficulty in assessing future risk Risk to participants or research staff

Note: REB = research ethics board.