Reduce IRB meeting length with even slate
Little changes reap big benefits
It was clear to IRB coordinators that something had to be done to improve the length of IRB meetings. Some of the four biomedical IRBs at Northwestern University in Chicago, IL, were fairly fast in reviewing protocols, but others took too long. When IRB staff looked closer at the discrepancy, they found that the boards that took longer had significantly more protocols to review than those that were fast.
"We wanted to reduce the length of IRB meetings, but we found uneven distribution of work," says Lisa M. Linn, CCRC, CIP, senior IRB coordinator at Northwestern University.
"One panel particularly was overburdened," she says.
IRBs had been operating on a deadline system in which any projects that came in by the deadline could go on a meeting agenda, Linn explains.
Each of the four biomedical boards would meet on a different week, and there seemed to be one week when more protocols would be submitted than were submitted during the other weeks.
What happened was that some IRBs ended up with an average of 28 submissions and others had fewer than 20, with one averaging 15 protocols per meeting, she says.
"That's where the unequal workload came in," Linn says.
"There could be 30 projects or 10 projects, so we capped them at 20 projects because the meetings were going on too long," she adds.
The IRB office notified investigators about the cap system, and placed information on the Web site about how the IRBs no longer were working on a deadline system. Instead, it would be a first-come, first-serve, Linn says.
Once the cap was put in place, the protocol distribution became more uniform, spreading out the work more evenly among the IRBs.
"If one meeting fills up quickly, then any new submissions we receive are assigned to the next panel," Linn says. "There were some little growing pains, but they resolved pretty quickly, and now things are running quite smoothly."
The IRB that had often seen a higher caseload than others and also had longer meetings, immediately experienced improvements.
"We reduced their meeting time by 22 minutes on average," Linn says.
"Now that the workloads have been distributed more evenly, we find that the wait time isn't as significant," Linn notes.
"New projects that come don't have a wait time," she explains. "The week the IRB office receives it is the week it's sent out to the first available panel."
Also, there is no lag time for assigning submissions to meetings, Linn says.
The IRB office also has tackled review timeliness by sending IRB members submissions two weeks prior to meetings and giving them one-week deadlines to return comments for investigators, she says.
It was clear to IRB coordinators that something had to be done to improve the length of IRB meetings. Some of the four biomedical IRBs at Northwestern University in Chicago, IL, were fairly fast in reviewing protocols, but others took too long.You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content