VHA Handbook 1058.01 “Research Compliance Reporting Requirements” Version: June 15, 2015 ORO Presentation: July 14 and 16, 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Role of the IRB An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a review committee established to help protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects.
Advertisements

Office of Research Oversight Reporting: Who, What, When, and Why February, 2012.
Gerald Treiman, IRB Chair John Stillman, IRB Director Maureen Brinkman, IRB Administrator Ann Johnson, IRB Administrator.
SOP Melody Lin, Ph.D. Deputy Director, Office for Human Research Protections Director, International Activities Santiago, Chile August.
UTHSC IRB Donna Hollaway, RN, CCRC 11/30/2011 Authority to Audit 45 CFR (e) An IRB shall conduct continuing review of research covered by this.
Reporting Unanticipated Problems Involving Risk to Subjects or Others and Adverse Events WFUHS Policy/Procedure Effective Date 6/1/07 Wendy Murray Monitoring.
Office of Research Oversight. Working Group Report Slide 2.
Office of Research Oversight. Challenges & Opportunities Related to “Collaborative” Research with Affiliates Challenges –Federal Records Retention Requirements.
IRB Determinations 1. AAHRPP Site Visit Results Site visitors observed a real commitment to human subject protections Investigator and research staff.
1 Developed by: U-MIC To start the presentation, click on this button in the lower right corner of your screen. The presentation will begin after the.
Recently Issued OHRP Documents: Guidance on Subject Withdrawal and Draft Revised FWA Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections October.
Pharmacists Responsibilities in Clinical Studies Mike R Sather, PhD Crystal L Harris, PharmD February 26, 2004.
Columbia University IRB IRB 101 September 21, 2005 George Gasparis, Executive Director, CU IRB Asst. V.P. and Sr. Asst. Dean for Research Ethics.
CUMC IRB Investigator Meeting Human Subjects Research Non-Compliance September 15, 2005.
Human Research Protection Program Training: Post-Approval Event Reporting March 26, 2008 Lisa Voss, MPH, CIP Assistant Director, QIU Human Research Protection.
HRPP Policies & Forms Created/Revised for AAHRPP.
Unlocking the Mystery of General Information Reporting Research Compliance Administration Training Presentation Wednesday, June 6, 2007 Presenter:Heather.
Office of Research Oversight Update VA IRB Chair Meeting Baltimore, Maryland August 14-15, 2012 August 14, 2012.
2012 VA IRB Administrators Meeting Stephania H. Griffin, JD, RHIA, CIPP/G VHA Privacy Officer Director, Information Access and Privacy Privacy Officer.
Continuing Review VA Requirements Kevin L. Nellis, M.S., M.T. (A.S.C.P.) Program Analyst Program for Research Integrity Development and Education (PRIDE)
Federalwide Assurance Presentation for IRB Members.
Adverse Events, Unanticipated Problems, Protocol Deviations & other Safety Information Which Form 4 to Use?
New Research Service Standard Operating Procedures Kimberly Summers, PharmD Assistant Chief for Clinical Research South Texas Veterans Health Care System.
SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTING Elizabeth Dayag IRB Administrator Naval Medical Center Portsmouth.
International Research & Research Involving Children K. Lynn Cates, MD Assistant Chief Research & Development Officer Office of Research & Development.
Adverse Events and Unanticipated Problems Presented by: Karen Jeans, PhD, CCRN, CIP COACH Program Analyst.
ORO Reviews: Frequent Findings Related to IRBs Bob Brooks Associate Director Research Compliance Education and Policy VHA Office of Research Oversight.
Unanticipated Problems Potentially Involving Risks to Subjects or Others Research Protections Office Serving UVM and FAHC Updated April 2012.
New Adverse Event Reporting Policy Effective September 1, 2007.
Office of Research Oversight ORO Reporting Adverse Events in Research to ORO Paula Squire Waterman, MS, CIP Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research.
Sara Brand Associate Director Research Compliance Administration.
Common Audit Findings UTHSC Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Michelle Groy Johnson Quality Improvement Officer Research Integrity Office Tough Love: Understanding the Purpose and Processes of Quality Assurance.
IRB Board Education Session 6 How Consent Regulations are Implemented in INSPIR Mary Banks Director, Office of the IRB June -July 2005.
Research Auditing Presented by: Darlene Krueger, MBA RN CCRA Chief, GCP Auditing & Training VA Cooperative Studies Program Albuquerque, NM.
Ensuring Human Subject Protection A Guide for Those who Obtain Research Informed Consent Documents 10/15/20151.
ORO Reviews: Frequent Findings Bob Brooks Associate Director Research Compliance Education and Policy VHA Office of Research Oversight May, 2012.
Questions: AAHRPP Evaluation Instrument for Use with Final Revised Accreditation Standards Presented by: C. Karen Jeans, MSN, CCRN, CIP COACH Program Analyst,
Office of Research Oversight 1 VHA Handbook Research Compliance Reporting Requirements Revised May 21, 2010 (Presentation prepared for HRPP 101,
JERI R. BARNEY, JD HRPP COMPLIANCE MANAGER YALE UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION PROGRAM DECEMBER 13, 2012 Noncompliance.
VA Central IRB Annette R. Anderson, MS, RHIA, CIP VA Central IRB Administrator HRPP 101, September 2010.
VA Central IRB Annette Anderson, MS, CIP VA Central IRB Administrator Updated: September 21, 2015.
Office of Research & Development (ORD) Local Accountability of Research 2009 Baltimore, Maryland January 13-14, 2009 “Meeting the Current Challenges of.
Human Research Protection Program & IRB Responsibilities Marisue Cody, PhD Director Center on Advice & Compliance Help.
AUDIT REQUIREMENTS, FINDINGS & BASICS RESEARCH COMPLIANCE.
Office of Research Oversight 1 VHA Handbook Research Compliance Reporting Requirements HRPP September
VHA Handbook What’s new. General Requirements for Informed Consent A Legally Authorized Representative may not always qualify as a ‘personal representative’
Office of Research Oversight 1 ORO Research Suspensions and Other ACOS/R Concerns Tom Puglisi, PhD Local Accountability in Research April 8, 2010.
OBSERVED IN ORO REVIEWS COMPLIANCE ISSUES: OBSERVED IN ORO REVIEWS David A. Weber, Ph.D., FACNP Acting Chief Officer Office of Research.
Continuing Review Presented by: Karen Jeans, PhD, CCRN, CIP Program Analyst, COACH.
VHA Research Compliance Reporting Requirements ORD Accreditation Conference Call December 15, 2011.
VA Central IRB Annette R. Anderson, MS, RHIA, CIP VA Central IRB Administrator Local Accountability Meeting June 2011.
Investigational Devices and Humanitarian Use Devices June 2007.
Case Studies: Puzzles in Human Research Kevin L. Nellis, M.S., M.T. (A.S.C.P.) Program Analyst, Program for Research Integrity Development and Education.
HRPP Policies & Forms Chapter Two Created/Revised for AAHRPP June 1, 2007.
Office of Research Oversight 1 Office of Research and Development Local Accountability Meeting January 2009.
Paul Kelly Facility Research Compliance Officer for the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center.
VA HRPP Accreditation October 18, 2011 Accreditation Conference Call PRIDE/Soundia Duche, MA, MS.
Non-compliance with Human Subjects Research Regulations J. Bruce Smith, MD, CIP November 2014 Continuing Education for IRB Members.
Office of Research & Development (ORD) Local Accountability of Research 2009 Baltimore, Maryland January 13-14, 2009 “Meeting the Current Challenges of.
Office of Research Oversight What’s New in VHA Handbook Dated November 15, 2011 December 1, 2011.
VA Central IRB K. Lynn Cates, MD Assistant Chief Research & Development Officer Office of Research & Development Department of Veterans Affairs.
Stanley Estime, MSCI QA/QI Specialist January 17, 2013 Reportable New Information.
Slide 1 Standard Operating Procedures. Slide 2 Goal To review the standard operating procedures Creating the informed consent document Obtaining informed.
Conditional IRB Approval
The HIPAA Privacy Rule: Implications for Medical Research
IRB reporting updates.
Reportable Events & Other IRB Updates February 2017
Navigating Non-Compliance
Event Reporting in Human Subjects Research
Presentation transcript:

VHA Handbook “Research Compliance Reporting Requirements” Version: June 15, 2015 ORO Presentation: July 14 and 16, 2015

2 All documents related to VHA Handbook can be found at: ORO’s Web Site: ORO’s SharePoint Site: Items.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsites%2FORO%2FRCO%2FShared%20Documents%2FV HA%20Handbooks%2F1058%2E01%20Research%20Compliance%20Reporting%20Re quirements%20%28June%2015%2C%202015%29

3

4 2. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES: This revised VHA Handbook clarifies and simplifies research compliance reporting requirements.

5

6 became effective immediately upon publication (June 15, 2015) ORO recognizes that research facilities need a reasonable period of time to update their standard operating procedures (SOPs) to comply with the revised requirements. ORO strongly recommends that all such revisions be completed and fully implemented no later than October 1, 2015.

7 facilities are free to retain local requirements that exceed those required by the revised Handbook where such requirements are working well and serve the needs of the local research oversight program.

8

9 3.SCOPE: This Handbook describes requirements for reporting compliance events in VA research to research review committees, VHA officials, and ORO. These requirements do not alter or replace any additional requirements for reporting such events to other internal or external entities as mandated by law, regulation, policy, or agreement.

10

11 §5.b. Reports to ORO. The VA facility Director must report to ORO within 5 business days (except as otherwise specified below) after receiving notification of any situation that is reportable to ORO under this Handbook. §5.b(2). The VA facility Director must ensure that ORO is notified by or telephone as soon as possible, but no longer than 2 business days, after becoming aware of: (a) Any research-related citation or determination of regulatory noncompliance issued by any State or Federal agency; or (b) Any situation covered by this Handbook that has generated media attention or Congressional interest.

12 §5.c. Remedial Actions. The VA facility Director must ensure timely implementation of remedial actions in response to identified noncompliance or as otherwise found warranted by ORO. (1) Except where remediation requires substantial renovation or fiscal expenditure, hiring, legal negotiations, or other extenuating circumstances, remedial actions must be completed within 120 calendar days after any determination of noncompliance. (2) Where remedial actions cannot be completed in 120 calendar days, the VA facility Director must provide ORO with an acceptable written justification and an acceptable timeline for completion.

13 §5.h. Systemic Deficiencies. VA personnel, including WOC and IPA appointees, must ensure written notification of the VA facility’s R&D Committee within 5 business days after becoming aware of any apparent systemic deficiency that has a reasonable likelihood of substantially compromising the facility’s research protection programs, including persistent failure by any subcommittee of the R&D Committee to adhere to the requirements governing VA research. §5.i. R&D Committee Responsibilities [for reviewing reports of systemic deficiencies]. §4.x. A systemic deficiency is a fundamental, underlying problem that jeopardizes the effectiveness of the facility’s research protection system(s).

14 §5.j. Voluntary Alerts to ORO. In addition to the required reporting described in this Handbook, ORO welcomes voluntary “preliminary” alerts about incidents that are unusual or likely to result in reportable events, as well as voluntary “near miss” alerts about incidents that could have resulted in a reportable event had the facility not taken timely action. Voluntary “preliminary” alerts facilitate efficient review and effective mitigation, while voluntary “near miss” alerts validate local oversight mechanisms and help identify emerging compliance challenges.

15 §5.k. Research Misconduct. ORO must be notified within 1 business day of any Research Misconduct allegations received by the facility.

16

17

18 An individual becomes aware of a LOCAL DEATH, LOCAL SAE, or SERIOUS PROBLEM in VA research that appears to be both UNANTICIPATED and RELATED to the research.

19 The unanticipated related incident involves a LOCAL DEATH.  The individual must ensure IMMEDIATE ORAL NOTIFICATION OF THE IRB and WRITTEN NOTIFICATION WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS.  The IRB MUST ALERT ORO (by or telephone) within 2 BUSINESS DAYS AFTER RECEIVING ORAL NOTIFICATION.  The Facility Director and ACOS/R&D must receive notification concurrent with ORO.

20 The unanticipated related incident involves a LOCAL SAE or a SERIOUS PROBLEM.  The individual must ensure WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF THE IRB WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS.

21  WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS after receiving written notification, the IRB Chair or a qualified IRB member ‑ reviewer must DETERMINE and DOCUMENT whether any actions are warranted to eliminate apparent IMMEDIATE HAZARDS to subjects. The unanticipated related incident involves a LOCAL DEATH. The unanticipated related incident involves a LOCAL SAE or a SERIOUS PROBLEM.

22 The IRB MUST REVIEW the incident and the determination of the IRB Chair or qualified IRB member-reviewer at its next CONVENED MEETING and must DETERMINE and DOCUMENT that: a)The incident was SERIOUS AND UNANTICIPATED AND RELATED to the research; or b)There is INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION to determine whether the incident was serious and unanticipated and related ; or c)The incident was NOT SERIOUS and/or the incident was NOT UNANTICIPATED and/or the incident was NOT RELATED.

23 The convened IRB MUST also DETERMINE and DOCUMENT: a)Whether any PROTOCOL OR INFORMED CONSENT MODIFICATIONS are warranted, and if so, b)Whether investigators must NOTIFY or SOLICIT RENEWED/REVISED CONSENT from previously enrolled subjects, and if so, WHEN and HOW consent is to be DOCUMENTED.

24 The unanticipated related incident involves a LOCAL DEATH.  For DEATHs, the IRB must notify the FACILITY DIRECTOR and ACOS/R&D OF ALL ITS DETERMINATIONS WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS.

25 The unanticipated related incident involves a LOCAL SAE or a SERIOUS PROBLEM.  For SAEs or PROBLEMS, the IRB must notify the FACILITY DIRECTOR and ACOS/R&D WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS after its meeting if (a)actions were taken to eliminate hazards to subjects, (b)the incident was serious and unanticipated and related to the research or there was insufficient information to make the determination, or (c)protocol or informed consent changes were warranted.

26 The unanticipated related incident involves a LOCAL DEATH. The unanticipated related incident involves a LOCAL SAE or a SERIOUS PROBLEM.  The FACILITY DIRECTOR MUST REPORT the incident to ORO WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS after notification.

27 An individual becomes aware of APPARENT SERIOUS or CONTINUING NONCOMPLIANCE with IRB or Human Research Protection requirements.

28

29 Examples of Possibly Reportable Serious Noncompliance in Human Research: (1)Initiation of human research without required IRB approval. (2)Initiation of human research without R&D Committee approval. (3)Initiation of human research without ACOS/R notification that the research may begin. (4)Failure to obtain informed consent for one or more subjects (where required, unless waived by the IRB). (5)Failure to obtain HIPAA authorization for one or more subjects (where required, unless waived by the IRB). (6)Modification of a protocol without IRB approval (except to prevent immediate hazards to subjects). (7)Failure to notify the IRB of a death, SAE, or problem as required. (8)Unfounded labeling of a death, SAE, or problem as “anticipated” or “not related” to the research. (9)Conduct of research without required credentialing, privileging, or initial training. (10)Conduct of research involving women known to be pregnant, prisoners, or children, or of international research, without required approvals from the Facility Director or Chief Research and Development Officer, as applicable. (11)Failure to implement, in a timely fashion, any protocol or informed consent modifications, or other changes required by the IRB. (12)Failure to remediate any noncompliance in a timely fashion as required by the IRB. (13)Continuation of human research beyond the specified IRB approval period (except where in subjects’ best interests as determined by the IRB Chair). (14)Substantive informed consent or HIPAA authorization deficiencies. (15)Failure to obtain documentation of informed consent (where required, unless waived by the IRB). (16)Substantive deviations from IRB-approved protocols, including substantive violations of inclusion or exclusion criteria. (17)Any finding by any entity, including clinical trial monitors, of apparent serious noncompliance as listed here. (18)Programmatic noncompliance (e.g., violation of IRB quorum requirements; improper approval or documentation of exemptions or waivers; failure to ensure review of proposed research sufficient to identify and address privacy or data security concerns). (19)Any combination of noncompliant actions that collectively present a genuine risk of substantive harm to the safety, rights, or welfare of human research subjects, research personnel, or others, or substantively compromise a facility’s HRPP.

30 An individual becomes aware of APPARENT SERIOUS or CONTINUING NONCOMPLIANCE with IRB or Human Research Protection requirements.  The individual must ensure WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF THE IRB WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS.

31 The IRB MUST REVIEW the incident at its next CONVENED MEETING, not to exceed 30 BUSINESS DAYS, and must DETERMINE and DOCUMENT: a)Whether or not SERIOUS or CONTINUING NONCOMPLIANCE actually occurred; and b)If so, whether REMEDIAL ACTIONS are needed to ensure present and/or future compliance.

32  If it determines SERIOUS or CONTINUING NONCOMPLIANCE occurred, the IRB MUST NOTIFY the FACILITY DIRECTOR and ACOS/R&D WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS.  The FACILITY DIRECTOR MUST REPORT the determination to ORO WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS after notification.

33 The IRB MUST ALSO TRACK ITS DETERMINATIONS of SERIOUS or CONTINUING NONCOMPLIANCE for use in the VA FACILITY DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION Additional Clarification: Reporting of this information will begin with the Facility Director Certification (FDC) submitted in CY2016 (i.e., the reporting period from June 1, 2015, to May 31, 2016).

34 NOTE ALSO that the following requirement from the prior version of VHA Handbook (§7.h) has been REMOVED from the current (June 15, 2015) version : “Within 5 business days of identifying apparent serious or continuing noncompliance based on an informed consent audit, regulatory audit, or other systematic audit of VA research, an RCO must report the apparent noncompliance directly (without intermediaries) to the facility Director.” Current Requirement : As with any other “VA personnel” the RCO must follow the steps indicated earlier (copied again, below): An individual becomes aware of APPARENT SERIOUS or CONTINUING NONCOMPLIANCE with IRB or Human Research Protection requirements.  The individual must ensure WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF THE IRB WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS.

35

36