General Discussions

 View Only

  • 1.  Transitioning from IRBNet (or similar system) to Cayuse

    Posted 01-03-2024 07:40

    Hi all,

    I would like to know how other institutions have transitioned their IACUC protocols from IRBNet (or similar system) into Cayuse. 

    Did you require all new amendments, renewals and new protocols to go into Cause all in one year?

    Did you wean your investigators into Cayuse over a three-year period – as their De NoVo's came to renewal?

    Did you have a different type of transitioning strategy?

    Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks

    Lisa



    ------------------------------
    Lisa Bianco
    IACUC Chair
    Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Transitioning from IRBNet (or similar system) to Cayuse

    Posted 01-05-2024 07:48
    Lisa,

    We are doing that starting this week.

    I assume you have your legacy protocols moved in as attachments to Cayuse protocols (i.e. most of the Cayuse protocol is blank and will require the PI to fill in the required info the first time they amend it).

    The plan:

    - Start with a select few PI's that are submitting new protocols or major amendments to get our feet wet (and to look for issues in our training materials).
    -  Quickly open it up to everyone who wishes to use it.
    - Within a month or so, require most amendments and all new submissions to go through Cayuse; administrative approvals by the chair (me)  (i.e. personnel additions, etc.) can still potentially go through IRBnet.  We might also still allow JIT amendments on a case by case basis so the PI doesn't have to update their legacy protocol (yet).
    - By March we plan to turn off IRBnet submission access.

    I don't expect to require a PI to update their Cayuse protocol from the existing legacy upload attachment until they either need to make their first amendment or get to their 3-year de novo renewal date.

    On another note, if you are allowing Cayuse and IRBnet submissions to overlap how you are handling your committee DMR reviews and meeting minutes.

    Jeff


    --
    Jeff Lewin
    Director of Chemical Laboratory Operations
    Research Integrity Office
    Laboratory Operations
    205 Lakeshore Center 
    Michigan Technological University




    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Transitioning from IRBNet (or similar system) to Cayuse

    RISING STAR CONTRIBUTOR
    Posted 01-08-2024 05:23

    Hi Lisa,

    In the past I had to do a migration of our information from one system to another.  It wasn't Cayuse specific but I hope that some of my experience can help you all figure out the best way to navigate the challenges.

    We were moving from one digital platform to another and had concerns that we would lose access to the data in a short time period (12 months) and so we opted to use a "best fit" model where IACUC staff and some temporary hires cut and pasted the information from one system into the form on the second system in the sections that it fit best and then we attached a copy of the previous protocol form to the protocol to serve as a reference point for when we lost access to the system data.

    As you can imagine, this meant that there was data sitting in unrelated sections and so trying to do amendments or renewals of the migrated protocols became very difficult for the office, the PIs, and the Committee.

    Ultimately, we spent 2.5 years working with the PIs and hiring in a "migration specialist" with the task of taking these migrated protocols and rewriting them (with the feedback of the PI) into the new format as part of three-year renewals.  (The system we worked with allowed 3-year renewals to be started at any point)

    Some take aways from my experience:

    a.  Migration of data from one source to another is difficult and time consuming no matter what you are working with and there is only so much that any vendor can help with for that work.

    b.  If you have access to your system information long term and can do a transfer over time so that as people reach their three-year renewals they move over to the new system that will be the cleanest and easiest pathway for your office and Committee but will likely annoy your PIs since they will have to "rewrite their entire protocol."

    c.  Having someone whose primary role is to assist PIs and Reviewers during this transition time is really helpful.  Ideally, the person doing this will become one of your subject matter experts on the forms and functions of the system beyond the standard "how to process protocols."  Once the migration is complete, they can then move on to assist other office functions and provide knowledge regarding the software.

    d.  If you have to move fast, a best fit model does work but you will need to include clean-up processes in your planning.



       I am happy to provide additional information if you have any specific questions.  Just let me know.

    Thanks
    Guy



    ------------------------------
    Guy Wiles
    Director, IACUC
    Augusta University
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Transitioning from IRBNet (or similar system) to Cayuse

    Posted 01-09-2024 07:58

    Thank you so much for sharing this!  We are anticipating migrating our protocols later this spring and you've highlighted many of our concerns and also identified some we hadn't considered.  I really appreciate you taking the time to type out your "lessons learned." 



    ------------------------------
    Nadia Slisarenko
    Protocol Analyst, IACUC
    Tulane University
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Transitioning from IRBNet (or similar system) to Cayuse

    Posted 01-08-2024 06:50
    Edited by Lisa Young 01-08-2024 06:51

    Hi Lisa, 

    I did this quite a few years ago at my previous Institution. 

    Our program was not very large; we had about 60 protocols. We did it over the course of a year, having labs submit de novos to cayuse. 

    We ran both systems for that time. Our Committee met monthly rather than every other month for that year, to get all protocols renewed and approved, de novo. We also gave half the protocols 2-year rather than 3-year approval periods, so that all the renewals would not fall together. Going forward, one year out of three was quieter for renewals. 

    It worked out pretty well. 

    Best, 

    Lisa



    ------------------------------
    Lisa Young
    Research Compliance Manager
    Salk Institute
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


Related Content