Comparison of the Author’s Process with My Own
After reading the study by Szanton et al. (2013), I found many similarities between the authors’ procedure and the one I went through at South University and Orlando Health. In each of these cases, creating and submitting an institutional review board (IRB) application was crucial in getting the approval I needed for my capstone project.
Insights Gained from the Article
I have learned that this procedure is an important component of research design, highlighting the significance of ethical issues in research and practice. An IRB liaison participates in the author’s process. This feature is consistent with my encounters, in which our counselor played a comparable role. However, in our instance, there was no specific IRB liaison position. This job appears to streamline the process, thus providing clarity. Having a specific liaison to assist with applications, provide counsel, and manage project databases would be advantageous.
Another fascinating aspect was the employment of a decision-support tool. It appears to be a practical way to speed up the decision-making process. Based on the project’s type and amount of risk, it assists in determining whether an IRB review is necessary. It offers both students and faculty a clear direction. In my situation, a tool like that might have made the application and IRB review decision-making process easier.
Reflections on Possible Changes to My Approach
Given this evaluation and my personal experiences, I can think of two adjustments I might have made. One such modification may be to push for the inclusion of a specific position, such as an IRB liaison, in the capstone project procedure (Splinter et al., 2018). This position could help students navigate their capstone projects’ challenging ethical and procedural requirements. The application of a decision support tool can be another modification. A tool like the one described in this research could make determining if a project needs IRB review easier.
Summary
Overall, the authors of this paper improved the structure, direction, and efficiency of our methodologies despite their similarities. The new method adds a level of meticulousness to the process that could be very helpful in the future. It ensures that the academic quality and ethical issues of student projects are properly maintained and upheld by offering a defined framework and clear advice. Such a framework improves students’ educational experiences and makes it easier for teachers to perform their supervision duties.
Reference
Szanton, S. L., Taylor, H. A., & Terhaar, M. (2013). Development of an Institutional Review Board preapproval process for Doctor of Nursing Practice students: Process and outcome. Journal of Nursing Education, 52(1), 51-55. Web.
Splinter, K., Hull, S. C., Holm, I. A., McDonough, T. L., Wise, A. L., & Ramoni, R. B. (2018). Implementing the single institutional review board model: Lessons from the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Clinical and Translational Science, 11(1), 28-31. Web.