59 - Engaging IRB Chairs: Analysis of the Working Relationship of IRB Staff and Chairs prior to IRB Meetings

Background:  This program assessment aims to describe engagement between IRB staff and chairs prior to an IRB meeting. To reduce disconnect identified by IRB administrative team, we implemented a recurring meeting the week of the IRB meeting that aimed to address potential controverted issues prior to the convened IRB meetings.

Program

Description:  Our institution utilizes an electronic submission system (iRIS) that includes features such as the electronic dissemination of agenda and reviews for each meeting. These automated features reduced the burden on IRB staff but also decreased face time between IRB staff and chairs. To remedy this communication deficit, our staff and chairs set aside 30 minutes the week of each IRB meeting to discuss potential controverted issues that might arise during the board discussion (referred to as Chair Huddle). This interaction grew to include discussion of the meeting itself including attendees, agenda items and conflicts of interest.

Program

Assessment:  Our analysis revealed that time spent in IRB meetings (45 minutes on average) did not decrease but slightly increased (47 minutes on average) after implementation while the number of items discussed per meeting decreased by 26.8%.

In discussing the implementation of Chair Huddle, a common theme that emerged from IRB staff was the value of having a direct line of communication with the chairs. In addition, IRB staff expressed a reduction in unexpected issues popping up during the IRB meeting because this program provided an opportunity for these issues to be voiced ahead of time. This gave staff time to seek clarification from research teams and provide additional regulatory guidance to the convened board.

The chairs valued the time to ask questions and be informed of issues that IRB staff identified, which helped eliminate concerns that did not warrant board discussion. Additionally, the Chairs felt this program helped them conduct more thoughtful reviews by creating an earlier deadline to review the agenda and identify concerns as well as areas where they need guidance.

Limitations: Our data did not account for an increase in the number of IRB submissions and the implementation of an additional monthly IRB meetings, which could have contributed to the increased time spent in IRB meetings.

In scheduling an additional monthly IRB meeting, the chairs’ availability prohibited adding a corresponding Chair Huddle. Thus, we cannot fully apply the impacts of Chair Huddle to all recurring IRB meetings equally.

Discussion:  Our institution found Chair Huddle to be beneficial despite any limitations. IRB chairs and staff echoed the importance of alignment on potential controverted issues and questions.

Institutions that have a more rigorous IRB schedule may find it challenging to dedicate corresponding time to meet with Chairs ahead of every IRB meeting to discuss each individual agenda item. A possible solution is prioritizing concerns or potential controverted issues versus aiming to discuss all submissions on the agenda.

Chair Huddle highlights the importance of building trust and alignment between IRB staff and chairs to have efficient IRB meetings and conduct thoughtful reviews.