gms | German Medical Science

127. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie

20.04. - 23.04.2010, Berlin

Quality management as a tool for improvement of translational research

Meeting Abstract

  • Barbara Mayer - LMU München, Chirurgische Klinik-Großhadern, Klinische Forschung Chirurgie, H02-312, München, Deutschland
  • Jacobo Maldonado - Consamed GmbH, München, Deutschland
  • Eugen Faist - Klinikum der LMU – Großhadern, Klinische Forschung Chirurgie, H02-312, München, Deutschland
  • Karl-Walter Jauch - Universitätsklinikum der LMU München-Großhadern, Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik München-Großhadern, Deutschland
  • Natasja van den Engel - LMU München, Chirurgische Klinik-Großhadern, Klinische Forschung Chirurgie, H02-312, München, Deutschland

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie. 127. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie. Berlin, 20.-23.04.2010. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2010. Doc10dgch335

DOI: 10.3205/10dgch335, URN: urn:nbn:de:0183-10dgch3359

Published: May 17, 2010

© 2010 Mayer et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.


Outline

Text

Introduction: Most research facilities especially in the preclinical divisions do not have quality management. Contrary, in clinical research official requirements are strictly regulated such as documentation, responsibilities and monitoring. Thus, most preclinical data cannot be translated in clinical trials or approval.

Materials and methods: Aiming at a higher confidence in preclinical research a quality management (QM) system, namely the DIN EN ISO9001:2000, was introduced. This QM system was chosen mainly because of the process orientation, the international acceptance and the annual external monitoring.

Results: The implementation of a QM system was time consuming and costly. However, 18 months after certification, the benefits for the preclinical research quality are already obvious. 1) Standardization and reproducibility: Over 300 standard operation procedures (SOPs), checklists and forms were developed, which are updated once a year. Laboratory equipment is regularly examined and staffs are well trained in its proper handling. 2) Project management: New comers in the research area are directed by an orientation guide, i.e. the QM handbook and a structured initial adaptation training. Projects follow a time line and milestone dependent project plan. A mentoring program supports new members in their daily work. Scheduled and recorded project discussions including data quality controls take place with the scientific group according to a meeting matrix. 3) Expertise: Competence of the staff including the students is continuously improved by specific training courses. Knowledge is further increased by weekly seminars, journal clubs and QM education. Interviews and surveys of the staff help to identify the individual needs.

Conclusion: A number of improvements are obtained in organisation, documentation, process flow and resource management in preclinical research by introducing quality management. Ongoing in the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle will be an important approach in benchmarking and the translation of basic science in patient directed research.