Guest Blog post by Jennifer Watson
PhD Student Manchester Metropolitan University
The IRAS system: The Integrated Research Application
System (IRAS) is an ingenious device whereby a potential researcher can
complete several application forms, all required in order to carry out research
within the NHS, at one time. “That’s
wonderful, why did no one tell me this before” you may cry. The reason nobody speaks about it is that the
pathway through it is strewn with the hopes and aspirations of hapless researchers
rather like Hansel and Gretel’s breadcrumbs.
Of course, the concept is a good one and, having never been
unfortunate enough to apply for ethical approval in the pre-IRAS days, I can
only assume that this is an improvement.
The problem is, that the more you delve into the process, the more
complicated it becomes. The first challenge is to register with IRAS and to
complete the on-line training. Looking back, this could be where I went wrong
in that I didn’t (complete the online training course, that is) but I took the
“I’ll look back at it when I encounter a problem” attitude before throwing
myself headlong into my application.
Completion of the
forms: Firstly, there is the screening process, whereby you fill in
some
answers and IRAS tells you which forms you need to complete. In my case I needed to satisfy the NHS
Research Ethics Committee (REC) and
the Research and Development (R&D)group covering the area in
which I wanted to carry out the research.
So far so good. IRAS then
supplies you with the questions you need to cover both forms to avoid
duplication and henceforth all should be plain sailing: answer the questions,
click the submit button and everyone will receive the necessary
information. This is where I realised I
should have completed the online tutorial.
“Submission” in IRAS-speak does not pass your well-considered replies to
anyone, it merely saves them in a form which can then be sent to…… who? We will return to this conundrum later.
Just in case you were planning to complete the IRAS forms on
a quiet afternoon as a break from the literature review, I feel I should
prepare you – there are a lot of
questions. Not only are there a lot,
there are a lot of “But surely I have just answered that” type of
questions. This need not be viewed
entirely negatively though as it does give plenty of opportunity to practice
your cutting and pasting technique.
Another word of warning here, it may well be that your DOS/supervisor(s)
wish to “look over” your answers before submission to the relevant bodies. Prepare for several weeks of reminder emails
followed by resulting amendments and more weeks of “looking over” the
amendments. Obviously, the more
over-lookers you have, the greater the delay, but this must be regarded as part
of the process and, if it can’t be enjoyed, at least you may learn something
from it. Which, can’t be all bad.
Submission: I feel at this stage that I must confess to
receiving insider information from a former colleague who worked on an ethics
committee. I was therefore aware at least of the existence of Local RECs, i.e. the bodies who will
review our applications and grant ethical approval to carry out research within
the NHS. That’s fine, the REC form is
submitted to the local REC and I can sit back and wait for their approval. However, pondering over the submission
instructions on the IRAS form, I discover that I need to book an appointment to
attend the REC in person for the review.
In addition the earliest appointment is six weeks ahead and 30 miles away.
There is also the matter of the REC checklist of accompanying documents to be
forwarded, which must be submitted within four days of the booking. This begins with a straightforward request
for relevant documents such as consent form, protocol, patient information
sheet and so forth but gradually becomes more challenging: CV (got that saved somewhere), CV of
supervisor (ah, fire off an email), letter from sponsor (who?), evidence of
sponsor’s insurance (whose what?). None
of these documents are unobtainable however and eventually can be tracked down
with a little investigation. Even the
process of obtaining electronic authorisation instead of signatures can be
strangely satisfying.
In the early stages of this process, I naively believed that
REC approval would give me the green light to happily stroll into GP practices
and recruit patients for my study. That
was before I discovered local R&D
approval. In other words, I need
separate approval to work in a specific NHS area – hence the R&D form
completed through IRAS. We now return to
the “submit to whom/where” dilemma. Easy,
a bit of Googling provides me of the name of the lead for R&D in the area
in which I want to work. This is fine,
except the helpful reply to my email tells me that I need to get in touch with
the Greater Manchester Comprehensive Local Research Network (GMCLRN) who will be able to approve my
application for the area in which I plan to do my study. Oh, and, by the way, I will need an NHS Research Passport form to enable me to
work on NHS premises (in that case, what is everything else about?), copies of
which, when completed and approved, need to be sent to the R&D person in
every NHS area I may wish to use. That
brings me to another point, the very helpful person at the GMCLRN reminds me
that I will need a Site –specific form (SSI)
for any area I may wish to enter and that I will probably need to cover three
areas just in case I cannot recruit sufficient participants from my first
choice. At least the SSIs can be
completed as an add-on to the IRAS and can be submitted to the GMCLRN, with
more additional documents, all in a nicely zipped folder attached to an email.
Nearly there now (six
months on!). There is, of course, the matter of the MMU ethics application form but, having
weaved through the IRAS maze, the MMU ethics form is almost disappointingly
challenge free.
Just the Research Passport application to deal with now and
we’re off! Once I have my Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check and Occupational
Health Clearance my passport will be granted and recruitment can commence!
Just the small matter of an ethics review and amendments to
consider, but I will leave those for another day………….
