To address this issue, we follow the process that Jenn Dier notes: The Reviewer makes a decision; reassigns themself as the Analyst; and, once it's under Post Review, they're able to re-assign the reviewer/review type.
We use the Not Exempt/Not Expedited/Not Limited IRB decisions and ask the Reviewer to describe the reason for the change in the Internal Note. (We use these decisions even if the reason for the change is just to change the reviewer and the review type will stay the same. Unfortunately, these decisions are the only ones that offer the functionality that we need). As long as they select Re-Assign once it's under Post Review, the decision -- including the justification for changing the review type/reviewer -- is saved. The submission is then routed back to Pre Review and the review type/reviewer can be re-assigned.
If you don't need to save the reason for changing the reviewer/review type then you can choose any decisions and just click Change - Reviewer/Review Type once it's under Post Review. But, I'd still advise using the Not Exempt/Not Expedited/Not Limited IRB decisions as these make it impossible to accidentally complete the post review and send a letter to the PI.
For exempt studies, we prefer this option, rather than assigning the Reviewer as an Analyst (versus Member), so the Reviewer's comments can remain anonymous -- we prefer to avoid having PIs call out our staff by name when they're upset with a reviewer's comments. If an Analyst is designated as performing the review then I'm pretty sure that they're name is visible to PIs on the comments.
------------------------------
Scott Fisher \
Director, Human Research Protection Program
New York University (NYU)
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-17-2023 09:56
From: Jenn Dier
Subject: Analyst and Reviewer Shared Role Problems
I believe (could be wrong) that once the Reviewer makes a Decision the Analyst then regains the ability to perform the remainder of the functions you are taking about (at the least to make changes to review type/write letters). You could test it out in UAT.
------------------------------
Jennifer Dier
Assistant Director, Office of Research Compliance Administration
University of California, Santa Cruz
jdier@ucsc.edu
Original Message:
Sent: 07-14-2023 11:38
From: Anonymous Member
Subject: Analyst and Reviewer Shared Role Problems
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
I am running into a problem when the Analyst and the Reviewer are the same person. What is happening is that once the Analyst is assigned as the Reviewer they lose the Analyst routing options (Image 1 for Analyst Options, Image 2 for Reviewer Options). This means that they can no longer change the review type to full board or the reviewer. Am I missing an option? Or is the only solution to change the Analyst to another office member so that they can then change the review type or reviewer? It is common for us for the Analyst and Reviewer to be the same person so this is a bit of an issue, as sometimes upon a deeper reviewer it may be determined that the study is not expedited and needs to go full board.
I have tried changing the Role in the top bar of the platform but that does not correct the issue.
1.
2.