3402 A High-Impact, Structured, Collaborative Approach to Implementing and Utilizing the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) for a Clinical and Translational Science Award

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This presentation will highlight a structured, collaborative approach to implementing and utilizing the RPPR process created at the University of Minnesota CTSI in response to the need to enhance the quality, efficiency, consistency, and utilization of annual program reporting. The approach is in line with the NCATS’s strategic objective that encourages all CTS organizations to “disseminate research results and best practices broadly, and promote a culture of openness, sharing and transparency” (NCATS, 2016, p. 19). Program activities that support translational processes and contribute to clinical outcomes are complex, nonlinear, and multidisciplinary (Smith etal., 2017). In this complex context, the meaningful engagement and reflection of program staff and collaborators is essential for all aspects of program planning, implementation, reporting, and dissemination. The University of Minnesota CTSI’s key objectives, goals, and uses of RPPR are as follows: - Develop, align, and leverage the RPPR to fulfill the accountability requirements, needs, and expectations of multiple stakeholders: NIH/NCATS, Internal Advisory Board and External Advisory Board, campus/hub, program staff and collaborators. - Engage the CTSA staff and collaborators as a team in multiple aspects of program reporting. - Inform strategic management, continuous improvement, monitoring and evaluation, organizational learning and dissemination to program stakeholders. - Translate the reported information into practical, evidence-based issues and strategic questions for the leadership discussions and advisory board consultations, actionable work plans, communication to stakeholders, organizational learning, and translational science knowledge base. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A case study of the programmatic/evaluative and methodological approach/technique development that resulted in a formal, structured, collaborative, transparent process with detailed guidelines, templates, and timelines. The process and content for reporting has been developed via a variety of methods and sources: specific funder (NIH) requirements, Huddle meetings, document/content/database analysis, reflection meetings with component staff, informal conversations, and observations. Preparation for the report began almost one year in advance, including careful analysis of the report requirements, developing user-friendly, detailed guidelines, templates, and examples. The guide templates and worksheets were created as a result of time spent navigating current instructions provided by NIH and NCATS. Timeline/project plan was developed with start and end dates for all of the moving parts along with identified responsible personnel for each of the tasks. A grid of the grant components and responsible personnel was designed to highlight the matrixed organization of the grant and the need to work across components to create single reports. The RPPR key categories have also been considered for incorporating and tracking in a program activity/customer tracking system for ongoing data management and use. As a complex translational science program, UMN CTSI has multiple initiatives, variables, and metrics to report. The program staff has been deeply engaged in the evaluative reflection to identify, prioritize, and incorporate into the RPPR the metrics that most useful to manage and describe CTSI processes, participation, products, and outcomes. Program components responded differently to the collaborative approach implemented. The ME responded to comments and information provided by the ME or requested a significant level of assistance from M&E. Participants/partners in developing and using RPPR include CTSI program leadership and staff, administration, communication staff, M&E team, and our collaborators. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The proposed comprehensive approach to the annual program performance reporting shows sound promise to enhance program staff engagement, report utilization, learning, strategic management, self-evaluation capacity, and continuous improvement within a clinical and translational science organization. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This structured approach’s impact is significant in that it fills the current gap in the practice, literature, and methodology and offers a practical example of a “practice that works” for CTR (and other) organizations and programs striving to improve their reporting practices, staff engagement, learning, and program impact. Leveraging and synergizing the RPPR requirements and other complex, data-demanding obligations and needs can help the CTS programs move beyond the once-a-year compilation of project accomplishments and challenges to developing and sharing a thoughtful translational science program success story. References: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. (2016). NCATS Strategic Plan. NIH. Available at: https://ncats.nih.gov/strategicplan Smith, C., Baveja, R., Grieb, T., & Mashour, G. (2017). Toward a science of translational science. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(4), 253-255. doi: 10.1017/cts.2017.14