**Transcript of Cyberseminar**

**Timely Topics of Interest**

**Working with the VA Central IRB**

**Presenters: Annette Anderson, MS, RHIA, CIP;  Stephen Bartlettttt, RPh, MSPH;  Lynn Cates,  MD;  Robert Hierholzer, MD**

**November 7, 2012**

**Working with the VA Central IRB**

**November 7, 2012**

Molly:We are at the top of the hour now, so I would like to introduce our presenters. Doing the majority of the presentation will be Dr. Robert Hierholzer. He is a psychiatrist and has been a member of the VA Central IRB since its inception in 2008 and a co-chair for the last three years. Joining him is Dr. Steven Bartlett, and he has also been a co-chair of the VA Central IRB since it began operations in 2008. Also joining us will be Dr. Annette Anderson, and she has been a VA Central IRB administrator since its inception in 2008. And finally, we have Dr. Lynn Cates who is the Assistant Chief Research and Development Officer in ORD and the director of the program for research integrity, development, and education. At this time, I would like to check in real quick and see if we have David Atkins on the line. Okay, Dr. Atkins may be joining us later to also make a few comments. Since we are at the top of the hour, at this time, I would ... oh I am sorry. We do have Dr. Atkins, so I am going to allow him to speak real quick. 

Dr. David Atkins:Hey Molly.

Molly:Hi Dr. Atkins. You are on the line if you would like to make a few comments before we get started. We will give him one second to join us. Okay, Dr. Atkins, if you can hear us, go ahead and call into the toll number and enter the access code. Until then, I am going to turn it over to Dr. Hierholzer to begin the presentation. Robert, are you prepared to show your screen?

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Yes, I am.

Molly:Great, go ahead and click, show my screen and we are all set to go. 

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Okay. I should probably be in the slide show version, I just realized. 

Molly:Correct. 

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Right okay. 

Molly:There we go. 

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Okay. I can proceed Molly?

Molly:Correct, we are all set. 

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Okay, great. Well on behalf of myself and other presenters, we are really pleased today to be presenting this cyber seminar on working with the VA Central IRB. We really look forward to an ongoing dialog and we recognize that this is really the start of a conversation. We have had others, but – and we are not going to be able to cover every topic of interest, but hopefully we will touch on topics of interest that will spark questions and discussion. So, what do we want to present today? Basically, here is what we are going to cover. We are going to cover what studies need to come to the VA Central IRB. That is necessarily going to involve us in a discussion about engagement, and I know there is a lot of interest in this question of engagement. We are going to talk about what the VA Central IRB process consists of. What are the steps? How do things happen? Who is responsible for what? And then we will end up looking at what causes delays in the VA’s Central IRB review process, offer some suggestions, and then really want to end with sufficient time for question and answer session to hear from participants today. 

So, Molly, can I ask you a question? How do I - I don’t know whether this instruction screen everyone is seeing that? Hopefully not, but is there a way to turn that off?

Molly:They are not, but to our audience and to you, just go ahead and click the orange arrow in the upper left hand corner, and that will minimize the ghost web on the dashboard. 

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Okay great, thank you. So, let me begin with the first topic. What studies must come to the VA Central IRB? And this slide basically spells it out. It is ORD funded studies with more than one site engaged in the conduct of human-subjects research. So, that necessarily leads us to a discussion of what is engagement? What does engagement mean? And I have listed here places where you can read more about that in detail. Also, the VHA Handbook 1200.05 also spells out responsibilities in multisite studies. But in a nutshell, engagement in human-subject research involves these things. A facility is engaged when a person with an appointment at that facility does any of the following: obtains for the purposes of the study, data about subjects through intervention or interaction, obtains identifiable private information about the subjects, obtains informed consent, or if the entity is receiving funding for the research.

Now, why is engagement important? Well, it is critically important, because if your facility is engaged, you have to have a federal-wide assurance. You have to have a local investigator for that study who oversees the activities of the study at that site, and is responsible for the activities. And you have to have one of the IRBs of record approve the study. Now we will talk about this later, the VA Central IRB certainly can be one of those IRBs of record that approves the study at the local site. And to date, we have MOUs with 97 of the 109 VA facilities that conduct human research. So, again, as we will talk about later, the VA Central IRB functions in that role. Now it is – this question of engagement becomes very important in HSR&D and QUERI studies, because it is possible that as an investigator, you can perform activities at another facility without that other facility ending up engaged. 

So, for example, you might be able to administer surveys or questionnaires at another facility, involving patients or employees, for example. And you might not necessarily ... that other site where that is happening might not necessarily be engaged, or for example, hold focus groups involving facilities, employees, or patients. And we certainly have seen that quite often, in HSR&D and QUERI studies. And in some cases, after review we realize that certain facilities that initially were thought to be engaged, in fact, are not, because agents from that particular facility did not meet or were not doing any of those activities mentioned on the prior slide. 

Now, one really important thing to remember is that handbook 1200.05, does say that the facility director does have some say in whether those study activities can occur at that non-engaged site. So, if you are coming from your site, conducting focus groups and it is determined that at that other site where the focus groups are occurring, is not an engaged site, the director has the right to say whether that activity can occur at that facility – at his or her facility. So, engagement is very important and its determination needs to be made. So, who can determine whether a facility is engaged or not? Well, certainly you can take this question to your local IRB, if you believe your site is the only one engaged. They can provide guidance. However, if there are other – that does not work or there are other questions about it, you can ask the VA Central IRB for a determination and I will talk later, very shortly, about having things like that reviewed in a pre-submission process. And then if it is not clear, even at that level, whether sites are engaged, ORD and ORO work together to make a determination, and that certainly happens with some frequency. 

So, as with many things, the devil is in the details. What kind of information is needed to make an engagement determination? Well, you need to know who the sponsor is and what is the flow of the funding? If funding – you may recall was on a prior slide regarding engagement into the funding comes through a non-profit or study staff are hired by the non-profit, then the non-profit is engaged. We need to know what sites are participating and who is doing what, who is providing data, versus obtaining data. Providing data does not engage someone, but obtaining data does. Then where will the activities take place? We need to know in making these engagement determinations who exactly is obtaining informed consent? Who is interacting or intervening with research subjects? Who is providing identifiable information? Who is obtaining it, and who uses and studies or analyzes this information? I will talk a little bit about that later, that last bullet point. Where are the investigators and other research staff appointments? 

So, those are the basic things about engagement, and let me talk now about the review process for the Central IRB. As I have already mentioned, it is very important or it can be very helpful to go through what we think of as a pre-submission consultation. I think in the long run that saves a lot of time. And you know, the first thing you can do is help you determine whether you need to submit to the VA Central IRB. As already mentioned, we can help with making those determinations about engagement, and then very importantly, can help you think through how to handle multi-phase studies, and I will talk about that in the next slide. The persons to contact would our Central VA Administrator, Annette Anderson, or one of the co-chairs. And all of our contact information is on slides at the end of this presentation. 

So, let me talk about that multi-phase issue. It is obviously common in the types of studies we see from HSR&D and QUERI for the studies to be in multiple phases. And often, as illustrated here, what happens in subsequent phases is highly dependent on what happens in the initial phase. And it could be, for example, in phase one that only that site is engaged, but in phase two and three, multiple sites are engaged. We certainly can encourage reviewing all phases of a study, so that you do not have to switch IRBs after phase one. And also we encourage people to think about submitting things or having things reviewed phase by phase. Certainly one reason for that is as indicated here, what is going to happen in phase two and three is dependent on what happens in prior phases. So, I think it, in the long run saves time to think about submitting these sequentially, though it is important for us, in our understanding, to kind of have some idea of where the whole study is headed. But it may be useful to think about submitting or seeking approval in phases. But again, that is the kind of pre-submission discussion that we can help with to help you think through. There are obviously going to be a lot of variations on how that happens.

So, what happens then after that pre-submission consultation is you submit what is called a Principal Investigator or Study Chair application. That is reviewed by a VA Central IRB manager. Again, their names are at the end of this presentation. There is a review by our regulatory staff, and then it goes one of two pathways, either to a full committee review or an expedited review. And you can see here, the people who end up reviewing those depending on which route that goes. The application will then also be reviewed by our VA Central IRB Privacy Officer and Information Security Officer. And we certainly hope that prior ... certainly for full committee reviews and certainly for ongoing expedite – expedite for ongoing discussion to occur, before that application actually goes to full committee, we can work out a lot of things before things go to full committee, and certainly encourage an ongoing discussion during the expedited review process. And that can happen directly between Central IRB reviewer and Investigator, though – or it can happen through the staff. I think mostly it happens with the VA Central IRB staff functioning as the go-between so to speak. But there are variations on that. And we certainly like to have phone conversations before things go to full committee, and in the expedited review process. We certainly have experience with that. That just really helps clear up a lot of issues better than playing email exchange or exchange of letters. 

So, once that Principal Investigator Study Chair application is approved by the VA Central IRB, or approved contingent upon minor modifications, then two things occur simultaneously that begin to involve the local sites. The first is a local site review. One of the things that’s very important for an IRB is obviously to understand local context and local issues. So, that PISC application is sent to each local site for review, and I will talk a little bit later about who that is sent to. But it is sent for review and comments by the local site. And at the same time, local site investigators, again in a multisite study, can then begin preparing what we call the local site application or LSI, Local Site Investigator application. So, they begin preparing those. Now the local site in that first part of that what happens is it is sent to the local site for comment. The local site has 15 days to provide comments back to the VA Central IRB. 

Now, you notice here in red, for highlighting, the local IRB does not perform a review. It has no role in the review of studies sent to the VA Central IRB. So, this is a question that we get – not frequently, but we get from time to time. Someone will say, well when exactly in the process does the local IRB review it. The answer is the local IRB does not need to do that and should not do that. The comments from the local facility must be provided to the VA Central IRB by the individual designated by the local facility director. This is spelled out in the MOU between your local facility and the VA Central IRB that there has to be a designated individual to provide those comments back to the VA Central IRB. And we see different people who are appointed to do that. In some cases it is the chair of the local IRB, in some cases, the chair of the R&D committee, but there are different individuals who will be appointed to do that. That is from whom we expect those comments. 

Now, I said two things happen simultaneously. One is soliciting local comments. The other thing that then happens is, is that application process for the local site investigators, and each local site begins preparing an application based on that PISC application.  I think local sites will quickly recognize that what we are looking for is deviations from what is spelled out in the overall PISC application. We expect the PI in the overall study to review the local site applications for consistency. And the expectation is that for anything that is different, anything that a local site wants to do that is different than what is spelled out in the PISC application if there is a justification for doing so. This you know off the top of my head, I am thinking of things like different method of payment for participants, something like that, or there may be other local requirements on various things. And certainly, things like different laws governing use of surrogate consent. So, those would be some examples there. 

Now, the local site, going back to the first arm of that, those local site comments that come back to us, we do review all of those. And we try to make some determination if changes are needed. Sometimes no changes are needed. Sometimes it is a simple clarification that the reviewer did not quite understand something. Sometimes it does result in changes to the PISC application. Sometimes, for example, we miss something. Somebody raises a really excellent point, and we think oh that is a really excellent point and we need to have the principal investigator address that issue. And sometimes the comments that come back to us are important comments for that local site, but do not result in changes to the overall study, but are changes just for that one local site application. In other words, it is a local issue. So, we do review all of those and provide feedback on all of those. 

So, at this point, the VA Central IRB can grant a final approval of the application.  Once all the local comments, we have to get those, and any modifications that come from those local site’s comments. Then following approval of that overall application we can begin to approve local site applications. And again, they can only – the Principal Investigator Study Coordinator application must be approved prior to approval of any local site applications. So, then we approve those individually and even for studies that go to full committee, most of those local site applications are now being reviewed in an expedited fashion. In other words, they do not have to go to the full committee unless there are particular problems that the reviewer has with the local site application. 

Continuing review is set up so that the expiration date for all sites is the same. So, the approval date becomes the approval date that was given for the PISC application. We notify the principal investigator beforehand, before the expiration date, as indicated here. And then we would expect that the PI then sets a submission date, so he or she can look at those local site applications before they come to us. So, then the local sites are expected to respond to the principal investigator. And then the principal investigator reviews all of that; makes sure it is all consistent and sends it on to us. 

Now, I have mentioned and let me talk a little bit more about these local roles. The medical center per the MOU designates a local liaison, really designates – there are two positions of critical importance. They can be the same person. They can be different people. A local site liaison is the person who is the person who is in the receiving role for information from the VA Central IRB.  So, this is the critically important person who is receiving and sending on correspondence. Then a person to provide comments to the VA Central IRB in that period of time that I mentioned earlier where we are soliciting local site comments. 

Now, I would just say that if you don’t know who those people are, your facility really would be good to find out. Ask the research office who those people are designated as the local site liaison and are providing comments just so you know. That would be an important thing to do. The VA Central IRB has the same role as your local IRB in terms of approving human-subject studies for your facility, assuming there is an MOU in place that allows the Central IRB to do that. But the VA Central IRB approval then is subject to all of the other processes that go on just as if your local IRB reviewed the study and reviewed and approved the study. So, the study still has to go to your local R&D committee. Those rules all still apply. The research compliance officer continues to have a role in auditing studies that are approved by the VA Central IRB. And we certainly receive and hear a lot from research compliance officers at the field as they audit at local sites. And then your local research office clearly has a role in terms of keeping track of training and credentialing issues. 

Now, again, kind of looking at it from the flip side when the VA Central IRB is functioning as the IRB of record for your site, then your local IRB as I already mentioned has no role in that process. And the local privacy officer does not need to have a role, because we have our own privacy officer and the review of the privacy officer on the VA Central IRB functions for the whole study. Now for the ISO, it’s a little bit different. The role is variable depending on the study and the local site, because there may be local issues in terms of information technology that our ISO will then consult with, or seek information from the ISO at the local facility. 

So, let me move on to talk about delays.  Covering a lot of ground and I do want to leave time for questions. So, obviously what is the most common cause of delays it is – there is a lot of back and forth between the IRB and the study team, because of unclear, insufficient information, but there are a lot of more specific reasons. So, some of the things that we have seen or things that we think can really help speed things up are contained in the next few slides. To make sure there is a clear research question, sometimes the research question can be embedded in a lot of text and hard to find, and sometimes it is variably stated. So, it is not really clear what that is. I would say that the detailed methodology is probably one of the bigger problems with things just stated in kind of summary fashion, and without sufficient detail. For example, for us to understand the critically important things like exactly how is recruitment going to happen and who is going to do that. 

It is important in your applications to have a clear sequence of events so that we can follow the flow of the project. Again, I know in back and forth in studies I have reviewed and others that sometimes we have to spend time just trying to make sure we have the flow properly to understand what is going to happen next and what each step is. Sometimes there are misunderstandings about how data are characterized. So, the investigator may think it is de-identified, but in fact it is not de-identified, because it is really coded. That has different implications for things like engagement and how those data are handled. Again, knowing who exactly is doing what is really important. So, for example, it is good to think about to keep things clear to use an active voice, not passive. So, it is better to say the Boston Study Coordinator will obtain informed consent; not informed consent will be obtained, because those are the kinds of steps that are absolutely essential for any IRB to understand how things like that are going to happen. 

Then, a lot of times your studies, HSR&D and QUERI studies, of necessity have consultants and statisticians and economists involved, but it is not clear what exactly they are going to be doing. And again, if you go back to that definition, exactly what they are going to be doing and what they are going to be handling. For example, are they going to be handling identifiable information, becomes a critical question in trying to make determinations such as engagement. Certainly we have seen studies where it works both ways, where initially the investigator believes someone is engaged, and as we get into the discussion, we find out that in fact they are not receiving any data, are not performing any activities, like obtaining informed consent. And we can say, you know, that site is really not engaged. But conversely, we have also had situations where someone is just mentioned somewhere as a statistician is at another site. As we get into that, we discover and realize that in fact that site becomes engaged, by virtue of the type of data and the activities that that person is performing. 

Again, some more things differentiating usual care from research activities. This is not as much of an issue in HSR&D studies as in CSP studies, but can be an issue. Providing specific information for things we need to make determinations about waivers. So, all those forms have questions and criteria. It is important to think about all of those. 

A growing area of tension is how we handle data repositories. There is a VHA handbook, 1200.12, that I would say in my experience is not widely understood in terms of the field; people understanding that it is out there, that there are specific requirements. So, that is a handbook that is important to familiarize yourself with, or just be aware that there are specific issues about data repositories, if you plan on retaining data and creating a data repository. And again, I think that is the kind of question that if you are just aware of it, you can bring it up in the pre-submission process and we can help you think that through. Again, so other things indicate we have to understand what facilities are involved. 

And then I would just say globally, it is important to think about what are IRB approval criteria? Because I believe I have said in other presentations and I think other presenters on this call today have. The IRB approval criteria are really quite a bit different than what you have to do to get funding. And we understand you write something up in order to get funding, but they do not necessarily address these kinds of criteria, and I am not going to read these. But these are the kinds of things that we have to think about on this slide and the next slide that we have to consider before we can grant approval to a study. 

So, we want to keep things positive and improve things, so thinking about preventing delays, one of the things we want to do is have more frequent conversations between IRB staff, IRB members, and study teams. And active monitoring of response times, and we are certainly doing more with looking at response times. We have been working on and have developed a new protocol template that we hope you will find useful to help organize information so that we can – so that you can know what information we need up front by completing that template and putting information into that template. We think that that will help speed things up. We wanted to do more with webinars for newly funded investigators and study coordinators. And we are certainly open to other ideas and we may get into that later, and I will say a little bit more about that in a few minutes. 

Other things that we are doing, we are in the process of adding individuals to the VA Central IRB with HSR&D and QUERI expertise. That is underway, and we are really excited to hopefully in the near future bring on new members with expertise. The new protocol template I have mentioned and we are aware that revisions to our application may be – that are needed to kind of tailor our application to the types of studies that you do, because the studies that HSR&D and QUERI fund and conduct can look quite a bit different, than for example, CSP studies. And sometimes these application forms come out of that culture of clinical trials and do not – are not well suited to the kinds of studies you do. So, we are looking at that. 

Again, providing training for staff and investigators via webinars and sessions like this and posting things on websites to give you more guidance. We do solicit feedback on a regular basis and maybe other panelists will comment on that later, for feedback on how we are doing. And again, we do want to have feedback and we can think about a process for that. You can send them directly to the VA Central IRB staff, or speaking for Steve, I am sure he and I would be happy to also receive those, or perhaps you can do that anonymously. I do not know if we have that mechanism worked out. But just note that vague criticism does not help, but if you have specific things that is really helpful, or any ideas you have about how we can make it right. 

Here is the contact information for myself and for Steve. We have contacts then for staff in the Pride office. Dr. Cates who is on the call and Anderson who I believe is on the call, our regulatory staff, and then our IRB managers. And I have covered a lot of areas. I have touched on a lot of things, and so now we would like to open it up to questions and comments. 

Molly:Thank you very much Dr. Hierholzer. We will be getting to our numerous questions in just a moment. Dr. Atkins would you like to make a few comments?

Dr. David Atkins:Oh thanks sorry, I had technical difficulties. I just wanted to thank all of the Central IRB staff for working with us and to just emphasize that this has really been a productive relationship. I think we are both trying to work out ways we can improve processes on each end of the relationship. So, this is really the first part of what I see as an ongoing process to try to improve the whole process of using the Central IRB, so their work is easier to do, and the results are better for our investigators. Thanks. 

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Thank you. 

Molly:Thank you very much. So, as Robert mentioned we do have quite a panel to help answer questions. We have Dr. Lynn Cates, Dr. Hierholzer, and Dr. Bartlett and hopefully Dr. Anderson will be joining us soon. 

Dr. Cates:Annette is on the line. She is in my office. 

Molly:Oh, sorry I forgot about that. Thank you,  Annette. 

Dr. Cates:That is fine. 

Molly:Okay, so we do have numerous questions in the queue so we will jump right in. On slide twelve, a three phase study should be submitted as three separate studies?

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Well, let us take a first stab at that. I do not think it has to be submitted as three separate studies. I think what we are seeing is – I am trying to think of an example, I am working with right now, where we – the overall scope of the study is laid out, and the hope and the intent. But for example in the one I am working with, exactly which questionnaire is going to be used and what those questions will be is dependent on phase one. So, how we have done that is we had approved phase one of the study to help determine those questions and now I am looking at phase two of that study as an amendment to the overall study, but maybe others want to comment about that. 

Dr. Bartlett:Yeah, I would just say on that one, it gets submitted as one study with approval initially as phase one, and then as it becomes more clear what phase two and potentially phase three are going to be, you provide those amendments and then we review those and approve those as they come forward. 

Molly:Great. Thank you very much for those answers. The next question we have, on slide seven, it noted that the medical center director needs to be informed of activities at non-engaged sites. Does this apply only to activities happening on site, or does it also include mail surveys and telephone surveys that happen off site?

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:I think – let me ... I am going to read from handbook 1200.05, and then I am hoping Dr. Cates can comment. It says in paragraph 51, it says if the ... I’m getting an echo. AVA facility that is not engaged in research for the purposes of a given study, has no jurisdiction over that study, except that the facility director may determine that the study cannot be conducted on its premises. So, Dr. Cates, did you have any further thoughts about that? 

Dr. Lynn Cates:Robert, this is Lynn. We got cut off for a moment. So, sorry could you repeat the question?

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Yes, maybe Molly could you repeat the question?

Molly:Happy to do so. On slide seven, it noted that the medical center director needs to be informed of activities at non-engaged sites. Does this apply only to activities happening on site, or does it also include mail surveys and telephone surveys that happen off site?

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Lynn, I was just reading right from the handbook.

Dr. Lynn Cates:Right sure yeah. Thank you Robert. It usually applies to things like focus groups or surveys that you will be conducting in person on the site. If you are specifically going to target their subjects – so for instance, if you ask the Chief of Neurosurgical Nursing for a list of all of her employees, so that you can survey them, that would also count under this. And so, in that case, you have to notify the Medical Center Director. Note, we specifically do not say you have to get approval from. So, you do not have to wait for them to say it’s okay to proceed. However, the Medical Center Director does have the prerogative of saying you cannot conduct this using our employees or at our site. Okay, does that answer the question? 

Molly:Thank you very much. If it does not, the person who submitted it is more than welcome to write in for further information. The next question, what tends to be the average turnaround time for approval once an application is submitted?

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:I will defer to others who have that data. 

Dr. Bartlett:Good Annette question. 

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Yes. 

Dr. Lynn Cates:This is Lynn Cates again. The turnaround time is very variable, and it depends completely on how complete the application is and then how well we can communicate back and forth with you. That is why Robert put so much emphasis on that slide as the most common cause of delays is, having to go back and forth. Sometimes everything is so clear things can sail straight along, but more commonly, there are a lot of questions that arise that cause back and forth between the investigator and the IRB. So, unfortunately, our average turnaround times include those kinds of delays as well as delays, for instance in CSP studies, where the investigator has to wait several months for the FDA to do its thing to release a drug etcetera. And so, we are hoping to get expedited studies turned around in the period of a couple of months and convened in a period within about four months, but it often takes longer than that, because we have to go back and forth. That is why we are working on this template, etcetera. 

Molly:Thank you for that response. The next question we have, this explanation seems to address specifically observational trials. Can the presenter discuss specifically drug trials, for example phase three/four trials, or is it the same process?

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:Let’s see, I am not sure that I quite understand the question. Certainly the overall process of working with the VA Central IRB is the same whether it is a clinical trial or an observational study. Now, I do not know – I am trying to find my slide here, about phases. Usually it is my experience the phase issue ... the word phase does not refer to the FDA term phase. So, it is a different use of terminology. It is not what we are referring to. We are referring to studies where you need data from a first phase or a portion of the study in order to do what follows subsequently usually. So, the phase language is not meant to imply have FDA import. It is not meant to refer to that. But the overall process would be the same. Typically, we have not seen studies where this doing things in phases applies to you know, clinical trial kind of situation. So, maybe if that does not address the question, then whoever submitted can write back in and ask for further clarification. 

Molly:Thank you very much. The next question we have. There are quite a few pending. On Slide 15, what is a local-site-investigator application?

Dr. Robert Hierholzer:What is a ...the local-site-investigator application?

Dr. Annette Anderson:A local site investigator application, we call it is a VA Central IRB form 104. It is available on our website, and what that is, is basically, each local-site investigator who was identified in the main PI application.  They fill out that particular form, and it's really, it mirrors the PI application, and as Dr. Hierholzer has said during his presentation, we're mainly looking for your local-site resources, your local-site study team, and then, mainly just differences that you might have in how the study is conducted at the local site, as opposed to what was in the PI application. You will notice, if you look at that, a lot of it is, if you're conducting the same study the same as it says in the PI application, then you just check a box, and you move onto the next item on the application. So that's basically what it is. It's in the approved what we call the approved protocol, or the approved project package for local site, includes the principal investigator, study chair application, and all that documentation as well as the local-site application. So they go together hand-in-hand. That is the approved package for the local site. 

Molly:Thank you for that response, Annette. The next question we have: If a VA study involves multiple VA sites, but is funded by a source other than ORD, should it go to Central IRB?Dr. Cates:No, that study does not go to the VA Central IRB. We don't have the capacity to do studies that are not funded by ORD. Some people may be familiar with the fact that we did accept one NIH funded study, that study involves 50 sites, 25 of which are VA, so as a trial we accepted that one study, but we found that there are logistical issues that make it much more difficult to do studies that are funded outside VA, so for now, that's the only study, that's non-ORD funded that the VA Central IRB has accepted. 

Molly:Thank you. What is PVSC application?

Dr. Bartlett: That's PISC.

Dr. Andersen:PISC. That is the Principal Investigator/Study Chair. CSP studies often, their PI is the study chair for the overall multisite study, and they wanted that terminology used. 

Dr. Cates: And essentially, that application is the one that you are used to as being the main IRB application that goes in for a study, so the PI application is pretty much what you would have expected if you'd sent the study to your own, to the PI's IRB to begin with. 

Molly:Thank you for that response. You may have already addressed this question: What are the turn-around times associated with each step of the review by the VA Central IRB, or is this oriented by a calendar of review?

Dr. Cates:No. This isn't oriented to a calendar. It's completely dependent on how much information we get from the investigator, and then, how quickly we can communicate back and forth to get all of the information that we need. We're hoping that the new template that we've developed, and is now being looked at by HSR&D and QUERI, so they can make sure that it's user friendly for you. We're hoping that this new template will help prompt you, so that the first time around, you have literally everything the IRB needs in order to be able to approve your study. So, we're going to try to eliminate that back and forth business. 

Molly:Thank you for that reply. The next question that we have: human subjects research reviewed locally at our site does not allow internet surveying of VA patients/non-employee subjects as per our facility ISO. Has the Central IRB approved research that permits this type of research?

Dr. Cates:No, and we actually have just been dealing with the research ISO, Joseph Holstein, who is here in the Office of Research and Development. He advises research ISO's throughout the country, and he is the ISO for the VA Central IRB, and that kind of survey is not permitted. We just actually reviewed this with him about a particular issue yesterday.

Molly:Thank you for that response. This is a followup to the last question, following up on the non ORD-funded question, just to clarify. So, if it is still a VA-funding source, but it is something other than ORD, it also would not go to Central IRB?

Dr. Cates:Yes, that is correct. So, there are studies that are funded, for instance by the program offices in VHA Central Office such as the Surgery Program Office, Epidemiology, Nursing, etc., and those go to the local IRB, not to the VA Central IRB.

Molly:Thank you for that reply. The next question: It's unclear what the benefit of a central IRB is if local sites still have their own application process. I understand it's not a formal review, but it seems like an unnecessary layer of review. 

Dr. Cates:Okay, the local sites do not fill out an application. What they do is they – there is a form that they fill out that's brief, but what we are looking for are substantive issues that are unique to your local site. This would be things such as if you lived in the State of California, there are specific requirements for HIV research for instance, so state and local laws. If you live in an area, and your population included Native Americans, there may be cultural issues that would need to be considered by the IRB. What we've told the local-site liaisons, and the people who provide comment is that we are only looking for substantive issues like that, that must be brought to the attention of the Central IRB. We are not looking for something like, grammatical changes from 30 sites to the Informed Consent Form, but it is important. There has to be a mechanism for the VA Central IRB to get information about local laws, local cultural activities, or special things that are to be considered for your population, and we used to allow them 30 days to provide these comments. Now, we found that they provided the comments either right at the beginning of the 30 days, or at the end. So recently, we've cut that period down to 15 days for them to provide the comments. 

Molly:Thank you very much. We do have upwards of 30 pending questions. It has appeared to researchers that there are some inconsistencies, if not, changes in what we're asked to provide to the reviewers. This has occurred in different studies as well as, at CR's for the same study. This also causes delays. Can you please comment? Also, it is worth noting that I serve on our local IRB. 

Dr. Cates:If you notice inconsistencies, would you please let us know, so that we can look into it, and what we're hoping, and I think, HSR&D and OUERI Personnel Staff here in Central Office would be happy to funnel those questions or those things that you'd like to point out to us, anonymously, if you don't want to be identified. Please note, we will not punish anybody, or hold it against anybody for bringing this stuff to our attention, because unless you point it out to us, there's nothing we can do about it, but we would really like to see that kind of thing, so we could try to straighten it out for you.

Dr. Hierholzer:Yeah. I would echo that, and would really welcome specific examples of where we've been inconsistent. We want to try to make things consistent. I will just note, maybe because I'm a psychiatrist that one of the interesting things in the formative phases of the VA Central IRB is that we have members from all over the country all coming from different IRB cultures. And so, it's been interesting to see how we develop hopefully a uniform process for the VA Central IRB coming from different IRB cultures, but there might still be instances where we're inconsistent, and we certainly want to know about that. 

Molly:Thank you both for those replies. Do multi-site studies of usual care, or QA/QI involving existing data without an intervention, need to be reviewed by the Central IRB? For example, do queries on the nationwide Med SAS datasets need to be approved by the Central Committee?

Dr. Cates:That is going to depend on whether or not you intend to generalize the results of your study beyond the VA, and there is a handbook that helps deal with those issues, *ORO's Handbook 1058.05* that helps clarify what is considered quality or operations versus research. So a lot of it will depend on what you intend to do with the results of the study. We would be happy to talk with you about your individual project, and help you with that determination.Molly:Thank you for that reply. Projects often involve elements of both QI and research. For example, there might be a research evaluation of a QI Program, any advice regarding how to differentiate these issues with respect to what parts need IRB approval?

Dr. Hierholzer:Well, I would say, in just thinking about my role, locally, how I advise people which is if a person believes that something is quality improvement, I think, it's just important, or usual care, it's important to just highlight that, and say, this is usual care. This is a process that's going to happen, anyway, and we're going to be studying that. I think the critical thing is just to clearly delineate it, and then, make a case why you think that should be regarded as such. It's just important for us to understand the reasoning, and the boundaries. Where does the quality-improvement project begin and end and where does the research on that quality-improvement initiative, or clinical initiative or whatever it is, where does that begin and end? Maybe other panelists want to comment on that. 

Dr. Cates:No. I think that's the only thing that you can do.

Dr. Hierholzer:Yes. 

Molly:Great, thank you both for those replies. Do you have to use Central IRB for a multisite study?

Dr. Cates:You do have to use the VA Central IRB for any study that has more than one site engaged in human-subjects research if the study is funded by the Office of Research and Development. 

Dr. Hierholzer:Slide 3. 

Molly:Thank you. Slide 28 asks about other ideas to prevent delays in central IRB review. Having example case studies that walk through specific examples will be helpful learning tools. It would be best to be housed on the Pride website, and/or an entrant in that site. 

Dr. Hierholzer:We whole-heartedly agree with that, and Dr. Cates can comment on that. I believe we've begun to look at some different scenarios that address the issue for example, of engagement. Our hope is to have a session down the road on engagement issues, but that's a really great idea! Maybe others want to comment.

Dr. Cates:Ranjana and some other HSR&D/QUERI staff have given us some examples, and we opted not to cover them in today's session, because we just didn't have time. And so hopefully, sometime in the near future, we'll be able to have such a session with examples which can be posted with you guys. 

Molly:Thank you both. This is just a quick comment regarding Slide 29. I am thrilled to have an HSR&D/QUERI submission template. An excellent idea!

Dr. Hierholzer:Thank you. 

Dr. Cates:Thank you. I wish we would have feedback from you guys on it. Even after it's looked at, and published, if you have issues with it; you think something could be clearer, please, let us know. We worked through this with CSP investigators, and it was really helpful to everyone when they said that they didn't really understand this, that, or the other. So, please let us know once you see it, whether it's working for you.

Molly:Thank you. Can you provide the web address for the Central IRB Website?

Dr. Cates:Absolutely, and I thought I had provided it, but I may have left it off. We will email it to Molly to circulate. Somehow it didn't get on this slide, so we will get it to you.

Molly:Great. The next question: I was just involved with a study that recently ended. One of my duties was to obtain informed consent and maintain original copies of the consent, plus the HIPAA forms in a subject folder. Now that the study is over, should I assume that the local IRB will be maintaining them?

Dr. Cates:No. The local IRB has to keep its records, but you have to keep your research records. 

Molly:Thank you. Does Central IRB, this is about the website where they can find templates, forms, applications, and modifications. I assume that's all housed on the website?

Dr. Hierholzer:Right, yes. 

Molly:You may have answered this one already. Do ongoing, multisite studies approved prior to central IRB need to be converted from local to central IRB approval?

Dr. Cates:No, they do not. 

Molly:Thank you. From submission to approval of a multisite study what is the average time to final approval?

Dr. Cates:Again, we've answered that twice.

Molly:Thank you. Can you briefly discuss the roles of the various Central IRB Staff whose contact information you provided?

Dr. Cates:The two Co-chairs are on the first slide. On the next slide this is Lynn Cates, and it's my responsibility as Director of Pride to make sure this central IRB is implemented. Annette Anderson is the VA Central IRB Administrator, so she is in charge of the IRB staff, and the three people who are on this slide on the right-hand side, Lucinda, Cynthia, and Theresa, are the regulatory people who will do a pre-review on your study, and contact you in case there are things that could be straightened out before this goes to the convened IRB meeting or to help speed along an expedited review. On the next slide are the people that you'll be dealing with the most, particularly once your study gets started. These are the VA Central IRB Managers, and you will be assigned a manager, and this manager will follow your study from cradle to grave, so that you'll, this will be your main point of contact for the study itself, for any amendments, for continuing review, and that kind of thing, and so you'll get to know these people well. 

Dr. Hierholzer:I was just going to say the person that's not here is the Institutional Official for the VA Central IRB, and that's Dr. Robert Jesse. 

Molly:Thank you. We are approaching the top of the hour, but we still have a couple hundred attendees still on the line, are you available to continue answering questions?

Dr. Hierholzer:Yes. 

Dr. Cates:Absolutely! Yes. 

Molly:Great, thank you. Will the Central IRB minutes become available sooner in the future?

Dr. Cates:We are working on that. We will get them out as soon as possible. 

Molly:Thank you. This is another comment. There seems to be wide variations in what the local R& D committees, and multisite studies require and believe they must, or should do as far as oversight. Can you please comment?

Dr. Cates:If you think that there are issues with your local R&D committee, Dr. Brenda Cuccherini deals with those issues and you are welcome to send us an email, and we'll be happy to get that information to her. I know that 1,200.01, which is the handbook dealing with R&D committees, is being rewritten so that hopefully things will be clearer, and more uniform in the future. 

Molly:Thank you for that reply. Moving on to the next question: What is a simple explanation difference between data access requests that include PII and/or PHI, and the IRB data access procedures?

Dr. Cates:We do not understand the question.

Dr. Hierholzer:I don't, yes.

Molly:They are more than welcome to write in and clarify.

Dr. Cates:Please feel free to contact us. Just email us, and we'll try to get back to you with either getting you to the right person, or what have you.

Molly:Thank you. If a study that will only use analyzed data within VINCI engaging all sites that contribute data to VINCI?

Dr. Cates:No.

Molly:Thank you. Could you explain more about how the decision is made regarding the ISO's role, whether central or local?

Dr. Cates:There's not a lot more we can explain except for the fact that what has happened, because of the nature of VA information security and IT, there are different kinds of equipment and systems at some various VA facilities than at others. For instance, there may be more secure routing between your university etc., may have already been established, and so, what we've found is we've been extremely pleased with Joseph Holstein, and his willingness to get ahold of the local ISO's if there's any question, and he helps iron out those details, but it would be great if the investigator would let us know if they think that maybe there would be some unique circumstances going on at their site, and then, Joe will handle it, and then, explain it to you, and explain, too, the requirements that he's basing his determinations on. Okay?

Dr. Hierholzer:Just to clarify, there's not a decision that the local investigator or the PI needs to make. Joe reviews all protocols that come to the VA Central IRB, and then he can make a judgement as to whether he needs to work with the local sites. So, there's no decision point in the submission process where you need to decide, does this go to the VA Central IRB ISO, or does it have to go to my local. He reviews them all, and then can determine what further is needed. 

Dr. Cates:But, if you know that there's special circumstances at your place, you might just give a heads up in your application.

Dr. Hierholzer:Right. 

Molly:Thank you. As this process continues, will more rural facilities be able to be engaged in research?

Dr. Cates:Could you say that one more time?

Molly:As this process continues, will more rural facilities be able to be engaged in research?

Dr. Cates:The only people who can be engaged in Human Subjects Research are those facilities that have an infrastructure. So, they've got to be able to have their own IRB of record on federalwide assurance, etc. There are maybe 160 VA hospitals, only 109 of which are set up to conduct Human Subjects Research. So, the only places that can be engaged are the VA facilities, those 109. The beauty of working with us on engagement is perhaps there will be a way, and we will talk about this as we do a follow on webinar on engagement, because we might be able to help you as you design your project, so that those places where you'd really like to get data, and really like to know what's going on, where they are not engaged, and so, you can still get good information about them even if they don't have an IRB. But the VA Central IRB cannot service their IRB if they don't have that infrastructure already set up, and it's doubtful that the places that you're talking about will have that kind of set up.

Molly:Thank you. You may have answered this one already. Do the same reviewers that review the PI/SC application also review the local-site applications, or are they different reviewers?

Dr. Hierholzer:Same reviewers. 

Molly:Thank you. Is there a mechanism where really local things like consent-form templates, approval of local advertising and recruitment materials, can be reviewed and approved locally only, and not go back through the PI/Chair, Central IRB, and back to the local research committee before implementation?

Dr. Hierholzer:The simple answer is no.

Dr. Bartlett:Yes. The VA Central IRB is the IRB of record. The local IRB is essentially out of the loop, so it's got to come back to the Central IRB.

Molly:Thank you. Are LSI's responsible for maintaining records of materials from PI/SC amendments and application submissions? 

Dr. Cates:Yes. They must maintain the records. The LSI is the local-site investigator, and the local-site investigator is responsible for the conduct of research at that facility, and that includes maintaining research records for the study as conducted at that site, and an important part of that is the PI/SC applications, the amendments, etc., because they're all applicable to what goes on at the local sites. 

Dr. Anderson:And the local RCO's will audit those records. They'll still do the regular, if it is informed-consent audits, the yearly informed-consent audits and the tri-annual audits, and they will expect to have the records available for audit. 

Molly:Thank you very much. We are down to the last 20 or so questions. Many times our local IRB will allow the investigator to present at the local board meeting to explain his study. Is this allowed with Central IRB, or is all communication through IRB administrators, and not with the actual board?

Dr. Bartlett:We talk to investigators a lot, although we don't ask them to present their project at our meetings. We usually open up a timeframe within our meeting to call the investigator, and get their - ask them questions, and try to clarify things during the meeting. Then we also have a lot of non-meeting calls with investigators to try to clarify as much as possible. As Robert mentioned, we like to do that more than just exchange a lot of emails, and paper, because we get to the answers quicker, and have a better understanding on both sides. 

Dr. Hierholzer:I would say that in terms of studies coming to the full board, that the norm if not almost invariable practice is to have the investigator on the line to address the full board.

Molly:Thank you both for those responses. Local IRB's have been resistant to suggestions to change recommended text to make it more user friendlier for Veterans with lower literacy. Currently a number of veterans require we read four to five pages aloud, requiring considerable time. How receptive will the Central IRB be to more literacy friendly forms of informed consent?

Unidentified Male:Go ahead. 

Dr. Cates:This is a chronic issue, and the VA Central IRB would certainly welcome informed consent forms that are more user friendly for the subjects. The problem lies in the fact that there are a lot of requirements for what has to go into the informed-consent form, and often that makes them more complicated than one would like, but we would certainly encourage that kind of behavior. 

Dr. Bartlett:I completely agree as Dr. Cates mentioned, there are a lot of things that have to go in the form that have to be there by requirements, and that's a larger issue, but we have several reviewers who are keenly interested in this, and invariably provide thoughts about simplifying language, and making it more user friendly. I would add one of the good things about the VA Central IRB is that members are really engaged. And so, we often and usually get comments and thoughts not just from the reviewers, but from all the members. So, it’s something that we're very interested in, and often find ourselves making suggestions about language being more user friendly. 

Molly:Thank you for that reply. Next question we have: What if individuals are staff of another VA, but will be performing their portion of the study at the main site? Would that be considered two sites?

Dr. Cates:We would have to see the details in order to sort that out, and exactly what they'd be doing. The bottom line is according to the official engagement guidance, the facility that has hired you is the one that is engaged. It doesn't follow the individual; it's the facility, and so any of its employees, or "agents." So, if you're hired and paid by Facility A, and then you go over to B to do the work, your facility is still engaged. 

Molly:Thank you. Are amendments reviewed and approved only by Central IRB, or are they also reviewed locally for comments similar to the initial Central IRB/LSI application process?

Dr. Anderson:No, the local site commentary is only for the initial application process. Beyond that, there is no local-site review of amendments or continuing reviews, unless those are a requirement of your R&D committee. Again, those are variable as was mentioned previously. We don't have any say in what your local R&D committee does. That's their review. So, as far as the Central IRB, we do not send them for another local-site comment. 

Molly:Thank you. This following one is question you may have already addressed: I would like clarification on who should submit to Central IRB? I have heard in the past that only studies that are allowed to submit to Central IRB are those that are invited to when they receive notice that they were funded. However, this presentation makes it sound like, either what I had been told was false, or it has changed?

Dr. Cates:No, what you've been told is correct. What happened was that we had investigators contacting the VA Central IRB prematurely, and that is when, sometimes even when the project was a glimmer in their eye, and not even written yet, other times, when, at the same time that they submitted for merit review, but before the study had been approved for funding by the service. And so, there got to be some confusion, and so, you do need to talk to your program office about this, because occasionally, particularly if there is a short period like with QUERI projects that have to be conducted very quickly, there may be times when your program office will coordinate with us, and say, hey, we're having somebody talk to you about this, but in general, you should wait until you receive your funding letter, and the funding letter will say - you need to contact the VA Central IRB.

Molly:Thank you for that clarification. Is there a way to avoid multiple changes to the approved main site application following the review of the local-site applications?

Dr. Bartlett:It's unusual for a local-site application to drive a change in the overall application. Maybe there is a specific situation that has happened that I am not thinking of, or unaware of. Perhaps the comment refers to the comment period, the comments from the local sites; not the applications per se. I would say that the majority of those comments do not result in changes in the PI/SC application. I don't know exact percentages, but it's probably quite small. I would estimate 5% to 10% at most. 

Dr. Cates:I was going to say 10% at most. 

Dr. Bartlett:Okay, and what I'm noticing, our reviewers who look at local-site comments is to really try to think hard about which ones might be a substantive comment. We try not to lightly just say, oh just change the PI/SC application. But again, as we've reiterated here, if there is some particular situation where that didn't happen, we certainly want to know about it. 

Dr. Anderson:Sometimes the local sites will have questions that we don't know the answers to that we might send to the PI to ask them to respond, but they won't require any changes to the PI application that would be a little bit more than 10%, but as far as changes, that's a lot lower. 

Dr. Cates:The reason that the local-site investigator application doesn't get started until the PI application is most of the way through the approval process is just to prevent this kind of back and forth, and wasting time that really the PI application is in pretty good shape before the local-site investigators start filling theirs out. 

Molly:Thank you. We are down to the last nine questions, and a couple comments. This one you may have already addressed: How much time should be allocated for determination of timeline preparations, three months, six months? 

Dr. Cates:Again, we wish we could say, but it really depends on how complete the information is that we receive, and how much back and forth it takes to make sure that all of the information that the IRB has to have ... the IRB has to follow the regulations, and unless they have certain information, they can't make a determination, and most of the delays have to do with the fact that we don't have all of the information that we need. It's really very difficult to say. 

Molly:Thank you. This person writes I jumped on the webinar late, so I apologize if this was already clarified. If the PI is at one VA facility with the statistician at another VA facility, could the PI obtain identifiable data, and remove the 18 HIPAA identifiers to require only the PI's local IRB to review the study? What about the issue of funding as a criterion for engagement in research? For example, if that statistician is paid through grant funding of a project, does that mean his or her facility is engaged regardless of whether the data is deemed de-identifiable when they receive them for analysis?

Dr. Cates:That's an important question, and we run into this question as Dr. Hierholzer mentioned during the presentation itself with statisticians, with "consultants," with "economists," and what has to happen is every project has to be looked at on its own merits, because we find there are variable things like the funding, like exactly what the statistician does etc. And so, we would have to see the whole project in order to make a determination, because we have seen such variation submitted to us. 

Molly:Thank you. Can you comment on where the local-safety review falls into this process? 

Dr. Cates:The local safety review is performed just as it would be for any other study conducted at your site. Basically, you can think of The VA Central IRB as just another one of your IRB's of record, and so, anything that has to do with the Safety Committee, Radiation Safety, Animal, etc., is done just exactly like it would be for any other study conducted at your facility. 

Molly:Thank you. How are we required to notify the Director of a nonengaged facility? Does this need to be a memo or a letter, or does it needs to come directly from the PI?

Dr. Cates:This is in *VHA Handbook*: *1200.05*, and off the top of my head, I believe it's in paragraph 52.

Unidentified Male:That's correct. 

Dr. Cates:That addresses this, and if you send me an email, I can send you the exact quote. All we say is that the PI must notify the Medical Center Director, and we do not say how. Ordinarily, the intent that we had in mind is by letter, or by email, but somehow in writing.

Molly:Thank you. You said Central IRB does not review non-ORD studies. QUERI funded does not come from ORD. It comes from operations side of VHA. Does Central IRB review QUERI studies?

Dr. Cates:Yes. The VA Central IRB does review QUERI studies, and QUERI we consider since QUERI is part of Health Services Research, and I would as Dave to clarify the exact relationship, but we do consider those in the same category as ORD-funded studies even though, we realize that a lot of their funding comes from elsewhere.

Dr. Atkins:We occasionally get this question from the field, but we’ve always operated under the position that these are research studies, or managed out of the Research Office, despite the fact that there's funding from partners. 

Molly:Thank you both. Next question we have: You said, Central IRB does not ... Going back to the question about patient surveys. Are you saying no online surveys are acceptable?

Dr. Cates:We would recommend that you talk to Joseph Holston, here in ORD, to clarify the information-security requirements for conducting any web-based research.

Molly:What is your current volume of studies, initial applications, and LSI applications?

Dr. Cates:We have a total of about 83 or 84 studies that have been received by the VA Central IRB. As we mentioned, we have had 97 sites sign up to use the VA Central IRB, and when you consider the number of local-site-investigator applications that comes to a total of almost 700, at this point in time.

Molly:Thank you very much. Given the amount of time the Central IRB review can take, and the fact that IRB approval is necessary before submitting a DART application through VINCI for access to national VA data, is there any reason an investigator could not submit their application to the central IRB before a funding decision is made, to avoid major study delays. This is particularly an issue for fast turnaround studies such as QUERI RRP's, or HSR&D pilot studies. 

Dr. Cates:Unfortunately, the VA Central IRB does not have the resources to do all of the studies that submit for funding, and if we did we'd be happy to, but we just don't have the resources, because that would then require multiples of the studies that we accept now. We sure wish that we could do that, but it's just not possible. 

Molly:Thank you very much. Can you please clarify: Will the VA Central IRB approve human-subjects research with online surveys of veterans? I believe you already gave them a resource to contact?

Dr. Cates:That's Joseph Holston. The ORD Information Security Officer and he advises on information security for research throughout the country, VA research. 

Molly:Great. In regards to the forms utilized by Central IRB, they seem to change version without warning. Is there any sort of notification planned, or anticipated to notify staff of current ongoing studies regarding updates to the forms?

Dr. Anderson:We do post, we have it is a section on our website that says, what's new, and we do post updates there. 

Dr. Cates:We will see if there is a way that we could do this for ongoing studies. For investigators who are new to the VA Central IRB, or if you have a new study coming in, we always suggest that you use the form that is on the website. Please, don't print them out, or save them for use later, because a few months from now, they may be out of date. We would want you to use whatever is available that day.

Dr. Anderson:That's right, and we always send you the continuing review forms with our notice so to make sure that you have the most-up-to-date, continuing-review form, and the amendment form doesn't change. I don’t think that, that has changed, really in a couple of years, so those are the main forms that you use. 

Dr. Cates:And, if there's a specific form that you're referring to here, if you could get that information to us, so we could see if there is a better way to make sure that there's no confusion, we would sure appreciate that.

Molly:Thank you very much. I believe this following one is a question that you've already answered in the affirmative. Is one staff member assigned to an application so that you're always contacting the same person?

Dr. Cates:Yes. Initially, you'll be contacting Annette Anderson, the VA Central IRB Administrator to get started, and then she will assign you to one of the IRB managers, and then that will be your contact for the rest of the study, unless for instance, one of the IRB Members themselves need to speak with you, or perhaps, one of the other reviewers, administratively, you will have the same administrative person, The IRB Manager, from the beginning of your study until the very end, unless we have a change in personnel. Unless somebody leaves us, or we get a new, once in a while if we have illness or pregnancy or something like that, and we need to reassign the study, that would be the only reason. 

Molly:Thank you very much. We are down to the last few questions and comments. I just want to make a quick announcement. A lot of people have been writing in; asking if they'll have access to this q & a. Yes, we do record the session, we will create a transcript from it, we will post that within a week on our archive catalogue, and it looks like we will be passing it off to some of these offices so they can post it in their FAQ sections on their websites. So, thank you for those inquiries. Next is a comment. This was a very helpful cyber seminar. It would have been nice to have it done earlier. Please consider doing another one in a few months most especially after any changes in Central IRB and/or, *Handbook 1200.01*. Thanks. 

Dr. Cates:We would be delighted to, and we stand ready to do this whenever you guys need it, and like I say, we would like to do a session on engagement for those who are interested. We are working with HSR&D and QUERI staff to set that up in the near future. 

Molly:Thank you. As follow-up to one of the last questions regarding waiting to submit to Central IRB until notified, what if a PI would conduct a study with investigators across facilities whether or not it was funded. For example, studies using existing VA data. Who should review their study?

Dr. Cates:No. We only do, again, ORD funded studies with the exception of what we've talked about with QUERI studies which receive funding from elsewhere. And so, no, those do not come to the VA Central IRB.

Molly:Thank you. This is the final comment. Social media could be a way to keep Central IRB users alerted on the form changes. I'm thinking Twitter or an announcement board where we could set up to receive RSS feed. Thank you for that suggestion. 

Dr. Cates:Thank you for that suggestion and ORD is working on an ORD Facebook page, and we will work with communications to see how we can use that. At this point, because this is so new, we don't have any other information at this point, but it is something we are going to look into. 

Molly:Thank you so much for taking the time to answer all of those questions. Would anyone like to give any concluding comments before we wrap up?

Dr. Bartlett:As you've indicated we appreciate all those comments. We're happy that this has been helpful. We want this not to be the final word, but the start of more things like this, and again, today was meant to be an overview of a lot of different things, but we think that there's certainly room and opportunities down the road to delve more specifically into some of these topics and scenarios, so thank you everyone for being on the call today.

Dr. Atkins:I want to thank Lynn and Dr. Hierholzer for all the effort that they put into this, and keeping engaged. Any of you who have dealt with the Central IRB staff, know that they are very eager to try to help, and they want to hear about issues that you're running into in a way that we can move forward, and like I say, I want to second that this is the beginning of a process that will be continuing. 

Dr. Cates:As a final word, I really want to comment on how excited we are to be involved, and to be able to work with you on these very exciting research projects. So, that's really a pleasure for us. 

Molly:I want to thank all of our presenters and panelists for lending your expertise today, and for Dr. Atkins for joining us, and I especially want to thank our several hundred attendees who stayed with us today. I will ask that when you exit today's webinar, please do wait just a second. There will be a survey that will populate on your screen, so please, provide us feedback regarding this presentation, and our program as a whole. We do want to keep your needs met regarding cyber seminars. So, thank you once again to everyone, and this does conclude today's HSR&D Cyber Seminar. 

[End of Audio]

24 of 24