Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 745
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 96-102

A personalized Institutional Review Board Liaison Service: Evaluation over its initial 30 months


1 Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Resource of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research, New York, USA
2 Institutional Review Board of the Human Research Protection Office, New York, USA
3 Office of Vice President for Research, New York, USA
4 Regulatory Knowledge and Ethics Support (RKSER) of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research; Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Zainab Abedin
630 West 168th Street, PH 10-305, New York, 10032
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/IJAM.IJAM_26_19

Rights and Permissions

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate whether a dedicated Institutional Review Board (IRB) Liaison Service situated at our Institute's central location could provide additional useful staff support to the investigator community for interactions with the IRB at various levels of protocol submission and review. Materials and Methods: Over a period of 2½ years, from January 2015 to June 2017, a total of 501 in-person consultations were performed during office hours, usually 25–30 per month. Most requests concerned new protocol development, IRB policy questions, and strategies for compliance or assistance in addressing IRB comments on returned protocols. We analyzed the results of a user evaluation survey for in-person consults and performed a focused in-depth analysis of the impact of the IRB Liaison Service. Results: Survey response rate was 43%. Results of 215 completed satisfaction surveys were 100% positive. Users were primarily study coordinators and investigators. Of a randomly selected sample of consultations analyzed in-depth for 67 unique protocols, 73% were subsequently approved within 14 days. Conclusion: National concerns about IRB-related research delays have led to the re-assessment of IRB review processes at institutional levels. Overall, we have found the Liaison Service to be a popular, useful addition to research support for a meaningful number of researchers, enhancing our already research-friendly environment. We plan to continue the service and the evaluation going forward. We will focus in the next phase on exploring whether the Liaison Service can reduce IRB approval times for protocols using its services and on providing support for the use of single IRBs for multi-site studies. The following core competencies are addressed in this article: Practice-based learning and improvement.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed62    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal