Table 4.
Features related to quality of research ethics committee (REC) work, Finland compared to England, Canada (Ontario), and the USA, around 2010
| Finland | England | Canada | USA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| REC control body oversight | – | Strong | – | Distant |
| Formal quality assurance | No | Control body | Accreditation planned | Control body, voluntary accreditation |
| Inspection of RECs | No | Control body, rarely by drug authority | Rarely by drug authority | Control body and drug authority |
| REC dismissal | Not in practice | Yes by central REC | Not in practice | In theory by central REC |
| Researchers’ choice of REC | No | Yes | No | Varieda |
| REC decision | Statement | Approval | Approval | Approval |
| Appeal possibilities | Limited | Yes, clear system | Yes | In theory |
| Independence from research site | Semi-independent | Yes | No | Varied |
| Accountable to | Hospital districtb | Control body | Hospital boardc | Institution/None |
| Transparency | Low | High | Low, recognized | Low |
| Obligatory education of members | No | Yes | No | No |
| Variability of decisions | Not discussed | Action taken | Identified problem | Identified problem |
| Dealing with exceptions | ||||
| Informed consent exemptions in trials | Not | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Emergency drug trials | Not possible | Possible | Possible | Possible |
| Handling of quality assurance research | Ambiguity | Problem identified | Varied, problem identified | Varied, problem identified |
aNot in established academic research centres, elsewhere possible.
bSince 2010, before then accountability unclear.
cHospital boards consisting of outside members.