Education and training of clinical and translational study investigators and research coordinators: A competency-based approach.

INTRODUCTION: Training for the clinical research workforce does not sufficiently prepare workers for today's scientific complexity; deficiencies may be ameliorated with training. The Enhancing Clinical Research Professionals' Training and Qualifications developed competency standards for principal investigators and clinical research coordinators. METHODS: Clinical and Translational Science Awards representatives refined competency statements. Working groups developed assessments, identified training, and highlighted gaps. RESULTS: Forty-eight competency statements in 8 domains were developed. CONCLUSIONS: Training is primarily investigator focused with few programs for clinical research coordinators. Lack of training is felt in new technologies and data management. There are no standardized assessments of competence.

Enhancing Clinical Research Professionals' Training and Qualifications (ECRPTQ): Recommendations for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training for investigators and study coordinators.

INTRODUCTION: The translation of discoveries to drugs, devices, and behavioral interventions requires well-prepared study teams. Execution of clinical trials remains suboptimal due to varied quality in design, execution, analysis, and reporting. A critical impediment is inconsistent, or even absent, competency-based training for clinical trial personnel. METHODS: In 2014, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) funded the project, Enhancing Clinical Research Professionals' Training and Qualifications (ECRPTQ), aimed at addressing this deficit. The goal was to ensure all personnel are competent to execute clinical trials. A phased structure was utilized. RESULTS: This paper focuses on training recommendations in Good Clinical Practice (GCP). Leveraging input from all Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs, the following was recommended to NCATS: all investigators and study coordinators executing a clinical trial should understand GCP principles and undergo training every 3 years, with the training method meeting the minimum criteria identified by the International Conference on Harmonisation GCP. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that industry sponsors will acknowledge such training, eliminating redundant training requests. We proposed metrics to be tracked that required further study. A separate task force was composed to define recommendations for metrics to be reported to NCATS.

CTSA Consortium Consensus Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Working Group Report on the SRC Processes.

Human research projects must have a scientifically valid study design, analytic plan, and be operationally feasible in order to be successfully completed and thus to have translational impact. To ensure this, institutions that conduct clinical research should have a scientific review process prior to submission to the Institutional Review Committee (IRB). This paper reports the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Consensus Working Group's proposed framework for a SRC process. Recommendations are provided for institutional support and roles of CTSAs, multisite research, criteria for selection of protocols that should be reviewed, roles of committee members, application process, and committee process. Additionally, to support the SCR process effectively, and to ensure efficiency, the Working Group recommends information technology infrastructures and evaluation metrics to determine outcomes are provided.

Accrual and recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutions: a call for expectations, expertise, and evaluation.

PURPOSE: To respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examined participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability. METHOD: The CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce in 2010 invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Forty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78%-91%, by study type); 39% reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39%); desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49%) and participant registries (44%). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to institutional review board (IRB) review (30%) or contract approval (22%). All respondents' IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10% of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Many CTSAs lack the necessary frame work to support study accrual. Recom men dations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment plan ning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruit ment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.

Identifying emerging research collaborations and networks: method development.

Clinical and translational research is a multidisciplinary, collaborative team process. To evaluate this process, we developed a method to document emerging research networks and collaborations in our medical center to describe their productivity and viability over time. Using an e-mail survey, sent to 1,620 clinical and basic science full- and part-time faculty members, respondents identified their research collaborators. Initial analyses, using Pajek software, assessed the feasibility of using social network analysis (SNA) methods with these data. Nearly 400 respondents identified 1,594 collaborators across 28 medical center departments resulting in 309 networks with 5 or more collaborators. This low-burden approach yielded a rich data set useful for evaluation using SNA to: (a) assess networks at several levels of the organization, including intrapersonal (individuals), interpersonal (social), organizational/institutional leadership (tenure and promotion), and physical/environmental (spatial proximity) and (b) link with other data to assess the evolution of these networks.

A roadmap for academic health centers to establish good laboratory practice-compliant infrastructure.

Prior to human clinical trials, nonclinical safety and toxicology studies are required to demonstrate that a new product appears safe for human testing; these nonclinical studies are governed by good laboratory practice (GLP) regulations. As academic health centers (AHCs) embrace the charge to increase the translation of basic science research into clinical discoveries, researchers at these institutions increasingly will be conducting GLP-regulated nonclinical studies. Because the consequences for noncompliance are severe and many AHC researchers are unfamiliar with Food and Drug Administration regulations, the authors describe the regulatory requirements for conducting GLP research, including the strict documentation requirements, the necessary personnel training, the importance of study monitoring, and the critical role that compliance oversight plays in the process. They then explain the process that AHCs interested in conducting GLP studies should take before the start of their research program, including conducting a needs assessment and a gap analysis and selecting a model for GLP compliance. Finally, the authors identify and analyze several critical barriers to developing and implementing a GLP-compliant infrastructure at an AHC. Despite these challenges, the capacity to perform such research will help AHCs to build and maintain competitive research programs and to facilitate the successful translation of faculty-initiated research from nonclinical studies to first-in-human clinical trials.

Support for investigator-initiated clinical research involving investigational drugs or devices: the Clinical and Translational Science Award experience.

PURPOSE: Investigator-initiated research involving investigational drugs and devices is key to improving health. However, this requires the investigator to serve as a "sponsor-investigator," which can be complex and overwhelming. The Investigational New Drug/Investigational Device Exemption (IND/IDE) Taskforce of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium carried out a survey to examine how academic health centers (AHCs) assist sponsor-investigators with regulatory responsibilities. METHOD: The 24 CTSA centers existing in 2008 were surveyed regarding regulatory oversight and support for sponsor-investigators. Responses were analyzed by descriptive statistics. The evaluation of survey responses yielded three models of institutional support/oversight. RESULTS: Nineteen centers and one affiliate responded. Eleven (55%) reported having an IND/IDE support office, increased from five (25%) prior to their CTSA award. The volume of investigator-initiated IND/IDE research was highly variable (measured by numbers of investigators, IND/IDE applications, and studies). Oversight, if done, was provided by either the IND/IDE office or elsewhere in the institution. Most IND/IDE offices assisted with IND/IDE submissions and preparation for external audits. Half reported advanced training for sponsor-investigators. Almost all reported a goal to increase IND/IDE research. Important issues include the need for robust training of investigator/staff, appropriate determination of IND-exempt research, and sufficient support for preparing IND/IDE applications. CONCLUSIONS: Investigator-initiated research involving IND/IDEs is essential, but complex. AHCs should examine how they support sponsor-investigators in meeting the complex requirements. A model of either expert consultation/support or full service will minimize risks to participants and institutions, and regulatory noncompliance.

Implementing a routine, voluntary HIV testing program in a Massachusetts county prison.

Although U.S. prison inmates have higher rates of HIV infection than the general population, most inmates are not routinely tested for HIV infection at prison entry. The study objective was to implement a routine, voluntary HIV testing program in a Massachusetts county prison. During admission, inmates were given group HIV pre-test counseling and were subsequently offered private HIV testing. This intervention was compared to a control period during which HIV testing was provided only upon inmate or physician request. Between November 2004 and April 2005, 1,004 inmates met inclusion criteria and were offered routine, voluntary HIV testing. Of these, 734 (73.1%) accepted, 2 (0.3%) were HIV-infected, and 457 (45.5%) had been tested for HIV in the previous year. The testing rate of 73.1% was significantly increased from the rate of 18.0% (318 of 1,723) during the control period (p<0.001). Among the inmates tested for HIV in the prior year, 78.2% had received their last HIV test in the prison setting. Careful attention should be paid to prevent redundancy of testing efforts in the prison population. Implementing a routine HIV testing program among prison inmates greatly increased testing rates compared to on-request testing.

Creating a bridge between data collection and program planning: a technical assistance model to maximize the use of HIV/AIDS surveillance and service utilization data for planning purposes.

Over time, improvements in HIV/AIDS surveillance and service utilization data have increased their usefulness for planning programs, targeting resources, and otherwise informing HIV/AIDS policy. However, community planning groups, service providers, and health department staff often have difficulty in interpreting and applying the wide array of data now available. We describe the development of the Bridging Model, a technical assistance model for overcoming barriers to the use of data for program planning. Through the use of an iterative feedback loop in the model, HIV/AIDS data products constantly are evolving to better inform the decision-making tasks of their multiple users. Implementation of this model has led to improved data quality and data products and to a greater willingness and ability among stakeholders to use the data for planning purposes.