This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Progress reports let the HREC confirm that approved research is still being conducted as approved and that the risk/benefit assessment still holds. Researchers must provide reports at intervals reflecting the degree of risk, at least annually, and at completion of the project, covering progress to date (or outcome, for completed research), the security of project data, and compliance with the approved proposal and its conditions (NS 5.4.8). This article covers the committee's side of that process; for what researchers must submit and when, see Annual and final reporting.
What the HREC checks
Continuation of ethics approval after a report is reviewed, or after the original approval period expires, is conditional on the researcher continuing to conduct the research in compliance with the approved protocol and submitting for approval any amendment that eliminates an immediate risk to participants, increases risk, significantly affects the conduct of the research, or changes the project's scope (NS 5.4.10). Reviewing a progress report, the HREC therefore checks:
- Whether the research is proceeding in accordance with the approved protocol.
- Whether any amendments have been made or are needed, and whether they have been through Amendments review.
- Whether any adverse events or safety issues have arisen since the last report (see Safety reporting).
- Whether the data security and consent arrangements described in the report remain consistent with what was approved.
Delegation
Review of routine progress reports may be delegated by the HREC to its Chair, a sub-committee, or administrative officers; delegated actions are not equivalent to HREC decisions, and the HREC decides which matters require its own ratification (NS 5.2.9 to 5.2.10). At Iris Ethics, annual progress reports and final reports fall within the business the HREC Executive Committee is delegated to review and approve without requiring Full HREC review (ToR section 4.1).
Unsatisfactory reports
Where a report reveals a concern, such as non-compliance with the approved protocol, an unreported adverse event, or evidence of harm, the reviewer seeks further information from the researcher and considers whether more formal action is warranted. See Suspension/withdrawal of approval for the range of available responses.
Related resources
This page was last updated on 16 September 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.