IRB Review Times and User Satisfaction
To keep you up to date on how long it is taking the IRB to review various types of submissions, we update the table and graph below on a monthly basis. The table displays the number of days (median and range) from date of submission until date of final determination (approval or rejection) for submissions that reached a final determination in March 2015. Some types of review require that the submission be sent back and forth between the IRB and the investigator. So we also show the number of days that protocols spend in the IRB office versus in the investigator’s office. The unusually long review times for New Full Board protocols in March was largely due to the fact that 6 of the 12 approved protocols were either incomplete when originally submitted or were deferred at their first review and needed to be revised and resubmitted.
James Feldman, M.D., IRB Chair
Colin Marchant, M.D., IRB Chair
David Kaufman, Sc.D., IRB Chair
Sanford Auerbach, M.D., IRB Chair
John Ennever, M.D., Ph.D., IRB Director
Review Time for Submissions that Reached Final Determination during March, 2015
|Number||Days from submission until final determination*||Days in IRB office*||Days in investigator’s office*|
|Full-board||12||76 (2-550)||30 (2-68)||35 (0-493)|
|Expedited||26||12 (0-45)||11 (0-34)||0 (0-16)|
|Exempt||26||8 (0-26)||7 (0-16)||0 (0-19)|
|Full-board||7||16 (6-31)||18 (6-27)||0 (0-4)|
|Expedited/Exempt||95||11 (0-66)||11 (0-35)||0 (0-36)|
* These columns show the median number of days (and range).
July 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014
When the IRB makes a determination on a new protocol (either approve, defer, or disapprove), we ask the principal investigator (PI) to complete a 6-question online user satisfaction survey. This brief survey allows a PI to comment on various aspects of the review of that specific protocol. In the table below, we have summarized the responses from the 147 surveys that were completed between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. A brief description of each question is shown in the left column.
Compared to the survey responses from Jan-June, 2014, these scores show greater satisfaction for every question. The INSPIR platform remains our area of greatest concern. We have recently installed an upgrade to that system which will allow us to make some changes that should make INSPIR easier to use.
Thanks to all of you who cooperated by filling out this survey.
Tom Moore, MD
Director, Office of Clinical Research
|Description||Strongly Agree||Agree||Disagree||Strongly Disagree||Not Applicable|
|Q1 The primary role of the IRB is to protect the rights and safety of human subjects. In reviewing this protocol, the IRB was appropriately focused on this role.||73%||22%||3%||1%||1%|
|Q2 In reviewing this protocol, the IRB dealt with me professionally and respectfully.||88%||10%||2%||0%|
|Q3 Given the details of this protocol, this review time was acceptable.||73%||19%||6%||1%||1%|
|Q4 For this protocol, the IRB focused on helping me overcome regulatory challenges rather than just pointing out regulations.||78%||20%||2%||0%|
|Q5 The IRB often requests modifications or clarifications from investigators before they can approve a protocol. For this protocol, those requests were clear, and I understood what the IRB was asking me to do.||56%||22%||1%||1%||20%|
|Q6 For this protocol, I found the INSPIR software platform understandable and easy to use.||24%||52%||17%||6%||1%|