Supporting research, protecting data: one institution's approach to clinical data warehouse governance.

Institutions must decide how to manage the use of clinical data to support research while ensuring appropriate protections are in place. Questions about data use and sharing often go beyond what the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) considers. In this article, we describe our institution's governance model and approach. Common questions we consider include (1) Is a request limited to the minimum data necessary to carry the research forward? (2) What plans are there for sharing data externally?, and (3) What impact will the proposed use of data have on patients and the institution? In 2020, 302 of the 319 requests reviewed were approved. The majority of requests were approved in less than 2 weeks, with few or no stipulations. For the remaining requests, the governance committee works with researchers to find solutions to meet their needs while also addressing our collective goal of protecting patients.

Institutionally chartered Data and Safety Monitoring Boards: structured approaches to assuring participant safety in clinical research.

Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) derived from the need to monitor large federally funded multi-center clinical trials and evolved to include commercial and other large and complex trials. Eventually, academic health centers also created institutionally focused trial monitoring mechanisms. The basic general principles that define traditional DSMBs extend to the institutional level. The primary responsibilities are assuring safety of the participants, preserving the integrity of the trial, and ensuring the reliability of the results. Institutionally chartered DSMBs meet these responsibilities but usually have fewer members, have a structure specific to the needs of the trial, are more focused and/or have different scope reviewing smaller, single site, higher risk, and investigator-initiated studies and are flexible to accommodate institution-specific requirements and approaches. Their purpose is to meet the responsibilities of oversight for safety and data integrity, ensure proper study design, rigor and conduct, as well as provide statistical support appropriate to the setting of the research. Academic health centers should recognize the importance and existence of institution level safety and data monitoring and provide support as much as possible. Investigators should have sufficient resources available to assemble DSMBs. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards Collaborative DSMB Workgroup provides an online manual to assist investigators.

ReGARDD (Regulatory Guidance for Academic Research of Drugs and Devices): The evolution of a collaborative regional CTSA-funded forum and website for regulatory support.

Availability of trained professionals to assist researchers navigating regulatory pathways for new drug and device development is limited within academic institutions. We created ReGARDD (Regulatory Guidance for Academic Research of Drugs and Devices), a regional forum initially involving regulatory professionals from four Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)-funded institutions, to build and capitalize on local expertise and to develop a regulatory guidance website geared toward academic researchers. Since 2015, members organized 15 forums covering topics such as FDA premarket submissions, gene therapy, and intellectual property for devices and therapeutics. Through user feedback, targeted surveys, and ongoing iterative processes, we refined and maintained a shared regulatory website, which reached 6000+ users in 2019. Website updates improved navigation to drug versus device topic areas, provided new educational content and videos to address commonly asked questions, and created a portal for posting upcoming training opportunities. Survey respondents rated the website favorably and endorsed expanding ReGARDD as a centralized resource. ReGARDD strengthened the regional regulatory workforce, increased regulatory efficiency, and promulgated best organizational and operational practices. Broad-scale deployment of the ReGARDD model across the CTSA consortium may facilitate the creation of a network of regional forums and reduce gaps in access to regulatory support.

A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment.

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide great promise for identifying cohorts and enhancing research recruitment. Such approaches are sorely needed, but there are few descriptions in the literature of prevailing practices to guide their use. A multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to examine current practices in the use of EHRs in recruitment and to propose future directions. The group surveyed consortium members regarding current practices. Over 98% of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium responded to the survey. Brokered and self-service data warehouse access are in early or full operation at 94% and 92% of institutions, respectively, whereas, EHR alerts to providers and to research teams are at 45% and 48%, respectively, and use of patient portals for research is at 20%. However, these percentages increase significantly to 88% and above if planning and exploratory work were considered cumulatively. For most approaches, implementation reflected perceived demand. Regulatory and workflow processes were similarly varied, and many respondents described substantive restrictions arising from logistical constraints and limitations on collaboration and data sharing. Survey results reflect wide variation in implementation and approach, and point to strong need for comparative research and development of best practices to protect patients and facilitate interinstitutional collaboration and multisite research.

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.