Embedding a research and engagement ethics process

Guidance and an informal peer feedback process had been in place at Islington council for over a decade, developed by colleagues in the Children’s, Adult Social Care and Public Health teams. However, regular interactions lapsed during Covid and colleague changes. 

The establishment of a central engagement team, formalisation of consultation guidelines and HDRC funding offered the opportunity to update, expand and embed the previous ethics process into Islington Council’s evolving institutional structure.  

The (re)starting point was to understand the current regulatory environment and how an internal ethics review process for primary data collection would relate to Islington Council’s requirements and processes related to data protection, safeguarding and equalities legislation. A cross-departmental team reviewed guidance and practices used by research ethics committees at universities, and a policy think tank. Members of the Evidence Islington HDRC team also led on a cross-council project that reviewed 14 local authority ethics processes to better understand how other local authorities were approaching ethics, referenced above.  

It was important that Islington’s process was responsive to the needs of service delivery teams, with a shorter turnaround time than academic research ethics committees and that it was not perceived as an additional administrative task. The process, and associated ethics review panel, takes on a collaborative guidance and advisory role, aiming to help colleagues conduct high-quality ethical data collection. 

The updated process has been formalised and extended to cover all directorates, for projects that are internally initiated and those that involve external collaborators (e.g., university partners). This involves the following step-by-step peer review process: 

1. The lead researcher is asked to fill in an online Engagement & Research Ethics Review Form hosted on Microsoft Forms, and provide the following information: 

• Project description, including purpose and timescale 

• Planned collaboration with other organisations  

• Research methods   

• How people will be recruited to take part and how consent will be obtained  

• Any risks to confidentiality or anonymity or to the physical, emotional, financial or social wellbeing of people taking part and how these will be mitigated 

• Potential benefits for those taking part including signposting to tailored resources and reward and recognition, if applicable 

• How information will be shared, including with people taking part 

• The process for responding to any safeguarding concerns or disclosures 

• How information will be stored and processed, including the experience and training of those responsible for storing data 

If a project involves the processing of personal data (name, address, demographic details), project leads are asked to complete a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) screening form, which is separately reviewed by the Islington Council Information Governance team. 

If the project could have different effects for people with protected characteristics or from disadvantaged backgrounds, project leads are asked to complete an Equalities Impact Assessment (EQIA) screening form, which is separately reviewed by the Fairness and Equalities team.  

Both the teams reviewing DPIAs and EQIAs have also built in processes to flag projects that may benefit from an ethics review process and reciprocally direct them to the Engagement & Research Ethics Review Form.   

Project leads are asked to provide examples of participant information forms, consent forms, and any recruitment materials. 

3. Risk assessment and further peer review

If the project is low risk, the project is not reviewed by the cross-council panel.

If a project is medium or high risk, it is sent to a panel member from a different directorate than the project initiator for review. However, if a project involves children or young people, it is reviewed specifically by a panel member from the Children’s Services Department (who is not directly involved in the project). 

Reviewers are asked to respond within 2 weeks with comments on the application. The reviewer assigned to each project will contact project leads directly with comments, and an opportunity to discuss the review. For projects that require additional information, the project lead will be invited to an ethics review panel meeting (which occur fortnightly). The meeting is used to discuss the project and brainstorm solutions jointly with the whole panel. This creates a collaborative and supportive process, that aims to create strong and ethically sound projects. Project leads can continue communicating and iterating their methods via email with their assigned reviewer until all parties are satisfied with the project plan.  

4. Ethical approval

When all parties are satisfied with the project plan, the lead from the ethics review panel sends an email indicating that ethical approval from the panel has been granted. Project leads can cite that approval has been granted by the Islington Council Peer Review Panel and indicate a date. At present, the approval process is non-binding and non-mandatory for colleagues in the council. It serves as an additional highly recommended safeguard, and an opportunity to receive feedback and advice. The panel work with applicants until everyone is happy with the result.  

Despite the process being non-binding, the team have not encountered anyone disengaging with the process once it has been initiated, even in instances where working with the panel meant delays and revisions to a project. The panel is seen as holding valuable expertise on research, and there may be reputational risks to having started and not completed the process. Additionally, collaborative working with the DPIA and EQIA teams (whose processes are legal requirements) has given the ethics review legitimacy, meaning the ethics review panel is 1 of 3 important processes related to data collection.  

Introducing the updated process 

The new process was presented at multiple council-wide engagement community of practice meetings, engagement leads meetings, and several department meetings. The process also continues to be  promoted via word of mouth, the intranet, mentioned at research skills training sessions, evaluation drop-in advice sessions, and when the HDRC and central engagement teams support research and engagement projects across the council.  

The Engagement & Research Ethics Review Form was piloted and minor adjustments made following feedback. For example, inviting project leads to the panel meetings has been a recent, but well received, adjustment. 

Impact to date  

In the last year, the ethics panel have reviewed approximately15 applications for medium and high-risk projects. With growing awareness, the panel expects the number of projects will increase. 

Feedback has been positive, especially the collaborative approach to reviewing and improving projects. Colleagues have generally appreciated support to make projects more methodologically robust and to protect resident-participants from harm. For one project, the additional time added to the process was seen as frustrating, especially given multiple revisions. The most common discussion points between the panel and project leads include the processes around informed consent taking, the need to build in more robust feedback mechanism on findings with participants, and appropriateness of survey methods if very small numbers are predicted.   

Developing and embedding a peer review process in the local authority has identified several useful areas of learning: 

The process needed to cover a broad definition of research and engagement 

Colleagues are not always clear on what counted as ‘research’ and should be submitted for review. Sometimes there is confusion about the difference between community engagement and research participation, and evaluation versus research, and where ethics needed to be considered. Islington Council uses a broad definition of research, and the ethics review process covers ‘anyone starting a new consultation, participation, engagement or research project’.  

It was essential to work alongside Information Governance and Equalities teams 

Embedding the ethics review process required strategic engagement with colleagues in the Information Governance and Equalities teams, who have legal requirements with which they must comply.  For that reason, after exploring the possibility of streamlining submission forms, the HDRC team have maintained separate submission and review processes, but with explicit referral routes between them.  

Staff capacity to support the ethics review process is an important consideration 

Panel membership is voluntary, and currently all panel members have joined based on their own interest and sense of need for an ethics review process. Currently there are 6 reviewers and 1 colleague providing administrative support. The HDRC team have encouraged membership from all directorates and are aiming to eventually have a panel member from each directorate. All panel members are local authority staff with prior research experience and expertise, with some panel members (though not all) having spent time working in academic settings. Most panel members also have significant experience in community engagement and community-focused research, making them well suited to review types of projects more commonly seen in LAs compared to university settings.  

Staff capacity may pose a challenge as application numbers grow, and sometimes panel members are not be able to provide feedback within the 2-week window the council aims for, especially given that panel membership is not part of core job responsibilities for any panel member.  

It is important to design a supportive and collaborative approach 

A supportive and collaborative approach has helped to drive engagement and increase the acceptability of the process. It has also led to the planning of better projects, instead of simply blocking projects that may need more support.  

The local authority process addresses considerations not covered by academic ethics review processes.  

Initially, if a project included an academic collaborator and was going through a university ethics review process, the council deferred to their feedback. However, panel members began noticing that university ethics review processes did not always focus on the same risks - most notably, the dual role the council might hold as both the researcher and the service provider, with a direct care responsibility for the participant.  Additionally, university ethics reviews often do not ask about sharing research findings with participants, which is included in the local authority process and important in maintaining ongoing relationships with residents. with participants s. 

Future plans 

The Evidence Islington HDRC and central engagement teams are continuing to increase the visibility of the updated review process across the council to increase the number of applications. They are working to develop the membership of the Ethics Panel so that it is more representative of all directorates and aiming to increase the number of reviewers from Children’s Services to accommodate demand for advice on projects with children and young people.  

The team are also working on providing more training for panel members and developing a standardised checklists to support the review process going forward. 

Islington Council received funding from NIHR in 2023 to set up the Evidence Islington Health Determinants Research Collaboration (HDRC), following a development year that helped to lay foundations for the collaboration. This is a partnership between Islington Council, Healthwatch Islington, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and University College London (UCL) that aims to make better use of evidence and research to reduce inequalities and improve residents' health and wellbeing. 

This case study was developed by Alexandra Levitas and Anne Buffardi from Evidence Islington, with support from the NIHR RSS Specialist Centre for Public Heath delivered by Newcastle University and Partners.  

For more information, please contact EI@islington.gov.uk 

This learning story was prepared with support from NIHR RSS Specialist Centre for Public Health delivered by Newcastle University and Partners. With thanks to HDRC Islington for providing the content.