PHILOSOPHICAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES Ethical review of health service research in the UK: implications for nursing A.M. Tod BA MMedSci MSc RN Research Nurse, Public Health, Rotherham Primary Care Trust, and Honorary Research Associate, Public Health, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK P. Nicolson BSc MSc CQSW PhD FBPSs CPsychol AcSS Professor of Health Psychology, Social Sciences Research Group, Medical Care Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK and P. Allmark PhD RN RNT Nursing Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Submitted for publication 6 March 2002 Accepted for publication 30 July 2002 Correspondence: Angela Tod, Rotherham Primary Care Trust, Bevan House, Oakwood Hall Drive, Rotherham S60 3AQ, UK. E-mail: cm4at@sheffield.ac.uk TOD A M NICOLSON P & ALLMARK P. (2002) TOD A .M., NICOLSON P . & ALLMARK P. (2002) Journal of Advanced Nursing 40(4), 379–386 Ethical review of health service research in the UK: implications for nursing Background. This paper examines the current systems and structures for ethical review of health services research in the United Kingdom (UK). Past criticisms and the adequacy of recent governance arrangements for Ethics Committees in addres- sing these are discussed. The implications for nurses are then considered. Rationale. This examination of the situation is prompted by the demand for more innovative research designs in health care evaluation, new regulations and guidance, and a climate of public anxiety regarding research conduct in the UK. Findings. The evolution of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) has been slow and resulted in a lack in consistency. Criticisms made of RECs can be categorized into four main areas. New governance arrangements for RECs have emerged as potential solutions to these criticisms. This review identifies the limitations of the new governance arrangements in addressing past criticisms because of two factors. The first is insufficient funding. The second is confusion about the confidentiality and consent requirements of clinicians working in areas where research is conducted and on whom recruitment processes often rely. The current situation regarding health research ethical review has implications for nurses, whether they are working as researchers, members of Ethics Committees or clinicians where research is con- ducted. Conclusion. The new governance arrangements may go some way to addressing past problems. However, investment in RECs is required. It is also important to realize that maintaining ethical probity in health service research is a tripartite concern. It is reliant as it is on the actions of Ethics Committees and clinical research partners as well as those of the researchers themselves. Keywords: research ethics committees, health services, nursing, qualitative, confidentiality, consent, governance Ó 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd 379