58 - Evaluation of Virtual and In-person IRB Meetings During Calendar Year 2023 and 2024

Background:  As institutional review board (IRB) meetings have been held virtually since March 2020, quality improvement (QI) activities were necessary for evaluating virtual IRB meetings, informing stakeholders, implementing changes in policies and procedures, if needed, and assessing our potential transition back to in-person IRB meetings.

Program

Description:  Following a proposal to return to in-person IRB meetings, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in 2023, and findings contributed to changes in the procedures for conducting virtual IRB meetings, including moving from 100% to 87.5% of scheduled meetings annually, and the implementation of 3 in-person meetings annually per IRB (12.5%) to facilitate team identity and networking.

During June and July 2023, 10 virtual IRB meetings were observed and recorded. Data collected included the average duration of the meetings and mean time spent on review of different events (e.g., renewals, new protocols, modifications). During June 2024, 5 in-person IRB meetings were observed and similar data collected. Data were collected for the February in-person meetings although the meetings were not observed. Surveys were also administered to the 33 IRB members in attendance during June 2024 to gain their subjective perspectives into the advantages and disadvantages of virtual and in-person IRB meetings.

Program

Assessment:  Data reflected that 164 items were reviewed at 10 virtual IRB meetings during June and July 2023, while 237 items were reviewed at 10 in-person IRB meetings during February and June 2024. Average review time for event types were calculated and compared as a quantitative measure of length of discussion. Renewal data are provided here as an example. Total review time for 60 renewals reviewed at the 10 virtual IRB meetings was 3hr27min5sec, averaging 3min27sec/renewal. The 38 renewals at the 5 in-person IRB meetings during June 2024 were reviewed for a total of 2hr23min28sec, averaging 3min47sec/renewal. While longer average review times for some events at in-person meetings are not conclusive in terms of reflecting more robust discussion, they might indicate the need for collection of qualitative data such as opinions from IRB members.

In the survey responses, about half of IRB members, 15/33, stated that they preferred virtual meetings and the majority of the IRB members listed “convenience” and “ability to socialize” as the advantages of virtual and in-person IRB meetings, respectively.

Limitations: A major limitation of this initiative includes the small number of virtual and in-person IRB meetings observed. Furthermore, only one in-person IRB meeting per IRB was observed, whereas two virtual meetings per IRB were observed.

Discussion:  We will use this information to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of virtual and in-person meetings. Surveying IRB members’ perspectives was a valuable tool to provide ongoing assessment of meetings. In the future, therefore, we will solicit their thoughts about other ways that IRB meetings and attendance at them can be improved in addition to whether meetings should be virtual, hybrid or in-person. This initiative has general relevance as a mechanism for institutions to conduct ongoing quality improvement of IRB meetings.