One of the things I am trying to find and hopefully build a report on has to do with how long a review takes for each of the submission types (AR, TR, New protocol, Amendments). If I can break that down further to determine the time the submission is with each holder (PI, Office, Reviewers, Vet) during the review process for each submission and then on average that would be even more useful. In addition to the review times for the submissions I would be interested in a report that pulls the total number of submissions submitted/approved over a time frame. Has anyone found a good way to pull the info using the system?
One of the places that this info might be collectable from would be the submission's workflow history. Does anyone know if this information is kept for each submission or is this history lost once the review is completed and the submission approved? If kept, where can it be found after that review's approval?
------------------------------Guy WilesDirector, IACUCAugusta University------------------------------
In the past (using a different software), We were able to work with our vendor, internal IT, and the IACUC office to create a tool to put this information together. The vendor created collected tables (PI name, protocol ID, state change time and dates) for each submission ever generated and ensured that the tables would be maintained and stable through any update process and granted access to these tables to our IT. Our IT then created a tool that was able to generate executive summaries of each submission that that they then were able to parse out who the "holder" was and for how long. Working with the IACUC office, we then generated the necessary exclusion rules for submissions and determined who the holder was during each state change.
I am happy to generate a product idea suggestion in this aspect or discuss more via email, messaging or phone if others are interested.
Thanks for the info. I do think that the workflow history would need to be utilized somehow to get the information and then build summaries out of the info for averages and such but I am not sure there is a clean way to sort it.
Doing a quick play inside our Dev site where I created a new protocol yesterday and then created an amendment to that protocol today, when I look at protocol revision search it does pull up the two versions of the protocol (the original and then original + administrative amendment but they appear at least in this search format as undifferentiated other than the version (both are listed as "new" protocols with the same approval dates and submission dates even through version two was the amended version of one.
If I go into the two versions, I can see that two was administratively approved compared to the back and forth of version one but without a clearer way to differentiate and sort I am not sure how feasible it is to try to do this by hand. Especially if we start talking about a large number of protocols (protocols here defined as the parent/current submission) with any number of annual reviews, amendments and three year renewals.
This is before we get to evaluating the workflow history itself (for the review time metrics) which currently would require work by hand or the info fed into another tool.
I will try to put together something as a product idea soon related to this and once it is out will include a link.
I have created a product idea post related to metric capturing and reporting.
Copyright © 2023 Cayuse. Site Design by eConverse Media.