Top Banner
INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits
111

INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Dec 27, 2015

Download

Documents

Arron Flynn
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

INSIDE EDITION:

The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits

Page 2: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

NIHPROACTIVE GRANTS

COMPLIANCE PROGRAM SITE VISITS

Page 3: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Cheryl-Lee Howard, Assistant Provost, Research Projects

AdministrationJohns Hopkins University

410-516-8668/FAX 410-516-7775

[email protected]

Page 4: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Gary Thompson, Director, Division of Grants Compliance

OversightOPERA, NIH

301-435-0934/FAX 301-435-3059

[email protected]

Page 5: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Elizabeth Mora, Director, Sponsored Research

Harvard University

617-405-0716/FAX 617-495-2900

[email protected]

Page 6: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Steven H. Smartt, Director, Division of Sponsored Research

Vanderbilt University

615-322-3825/FAX 615-322-3827

[email protected]

Page 7: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Today’s Presentation:

• Why Did NIH Undertake this Project? (Gary)

• What Happened at Three Sites: – Hopkins was first

(Cheryl)– Harvard was the first of

the “second wave” (Beth)

– Vanderbilt was last (Steve)

• Thoughts from the Site Visit Team: Did it work? What Happens Next? What is the Long Range Impact on Academic Research Community?

Page 8: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 9: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

NIH COMPLIANCE SITE VISITS

NCURANovember 8, 2000

Gary Thompson, Director Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight,

OPERA, [email protected]

Page 10: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Outline• Why NIH undertook this

project– Organizational

responsibility

– Propelling impetus...

• Institution selection

• S-V subject matter determination

• Selection of S-V Team

• S-V preparation

• At the S-V: Day 1– Opening plenary– Subject matter experts– PI’s/DC’s/DA’s– Closing plenary

• SME feedback

• At the S-V: Day 2 – Education/Outreach

• Evaluation– Did it work?– What happens next?– Long range impact...

Page 11: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Organizational Responsibility

Office of the Director, NIH• Office of Extramural Research (OER)

– Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration (OPERA)• Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight

– Parallel with OHRP, OLAW, ORI and Grantees

Page 12: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Propelling impetus...• Dramatic budget increases

– Commitment to double budget by 2003

• Issues of noncompliance– University of Minnesota– Thomas Jefferson University

• Loss of human life– University of Pennsylvania

• Increase in noncompliance issues, including a disproportional increase in OMA case workload related to grant issues

Page 13: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Why NIH undertook this project

Moving from

Reactive Noncompliance*to

Proactive Compliance*recognize that we’ll never eliminate reactive

noncompliance

Page 14: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Why NIH undertookthis project

• It is not always apparent that a culture of compliance and oversight is universally present in the biomedical research enterprise.

Page 15: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Expanding Resources = Increased Scrutiny

• FY1999 = +$2M over 1998– 2,430 $12.856B 100%

• Top 25 $4.879B 38.0%

• FY2000 = +$2M over 1999• Projected for FY2001*:

– ??? +2.7M over FY2000• Double between 1998 - 2003

*still on continuing resolution

Page 16: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Dramatic increase in grant related cases in (OMA)

• 37% increase in grant related allegations from FY99 to FY2000

• Grant cases increased from 40% of total cases in FY99 to 53% in FY2000– FY1999 = 30/75 total cases– FY2000 = 41/78 total cases

• Most allegations are institutional and involve Universities

Page 17: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Institution selection

CRITERIA– Level of support– Nature of support– Medical School (seven in Phase II)– Geographic Diversity– OPERA not engaged in active

compliance case

Page 18: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 19: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

N-F-C-S-V’s and PCSV’s

• JHU[1/1] 1010 $351M$255M• UCSF [4/4] 778 $256M$218M • HARVARD U.[8/19] 625 $217M$109M• VANDERBILT[29/25] 393 $111M$94M• OHSU*[34/29] 365 $103M$81M• UTSWMC/D[35/21] 325 $102M$102M • INDIANA U. [40/38] 345 $92M $71M• U. ARIZONA[49/50] 252 $72M $43M• U. MIAMI[50/42] 207 $72M $59M• MUSC[84/60] 162 $37M $36M

THESE 10 INSTITUTIONS ONLY 4462 $1.413M [11%] $1.068M [16%]

ALL INSTITUTIONS/MED SCHOOLS $12.856M $6.562M

Page 20: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

N-F-C Phase I and PCSV Phase IITheme: Institutional Oversight

• Roles and Responsibilities (Dean)

• Training and Education (Dean)

• Financial Management of Sponsored Projects* (Payne)

• Financial Conflict of Interest (McCormack; Mizzell; and Pryor)

• Inventions and Patents (Stone)

• Data and Safety Monitoring (Dixon)

• Clinical Gene Therapy Research (Groesch; Rosenthal; and Jambou)

• Hazardous Waste Disposal* (Demsey)

• Interactive Education/Outreach Seminar**not in Phase I NFC’s

Page 21: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

S-V: Preparation forand Conduct of…

GOALS:• Increase Educational Outreach• Enhance Administrative Oversight of

Sponsored Research• Renew Institutional Commitment to

Compliance• Receive feedback on obstacles to implementing

Federal rules/NIH policies

Page 22: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

S-V: Preparation for and Conduct of…

PURPOSE OF SITE VISIT:

• Assess level of understanding of certain NIH rules by discussing policies, procedures, and practices at recipient institutions to ensure compliance with NIH requirements

Page 23: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

S-V: Hoped for outcome

• To increase NIH’s level of confidence in grantee institutions’ ability to effectively manage NIH grant funds

Page 24: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

At the SV: Day One• Opening plenary

– Overview• S-V Team• Institutional Officials

• Breakout Sessions– Subject Matter Experts– Principal Investigator’s; Department Chairs;

Departmental Administrators; Sponsored Projects Staff

• Closing Plenary– SME Feedback

• S-V Team• Institutional Officials

Page 25: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

At the S-V: Day Two**No Day Two for Phase I

• Education/Outreach– Phase I

• Compliance Seminar at UCSF

– Phase II• All Seven Institutions

– Promoted by Institution

– Faculty and Staff

– Averaged around 150/Institution

– OHSU: More than 300 state wide

Page 26: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

NIH Site Visits

END PART I

OF NIH DISCUSSION

Page 27: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 28: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 29: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 30: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 31: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 32: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Difficulties

• NIH Team using Hopkins visit as a model for developping the process– At the time of our visit, had only scheduled

UCSF and UTDallas(subsequently changed to UT Southwestern Med Ctr Dallas)

• Very general guidelines

• Visit scheduled during Spring Break when many faculty unavailable

Page 33: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

THE PLANNING PROCESS

Page 34: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

JHU TEAM

• Vice Provost for Research

• Deans for Research from 3 Divisions with NIH Funding

• Controller

• Director of Internal Audit

• Compliance Officer

Page 35: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

JHU Team (continued)

• University Counsel

• IRB Chair

• Directors of Offices of Technology Transfer

• With consultation (and lots of effort) from many others

Page 36: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Guidelines from the NIH Team

Key areas:• Roles and Responsibilities• Training and Education• Financial Conflict of Interest• Inventions and Patents• Institutional Review Boards• Institutional Biosafety Committees• Reporting Adverse Events

Page 37: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Guidelines from the Team (continued)

• Provide in advance:– Roles and Responsibilities matrix– Relevant materials on:

• internal audit

• institutional oversight

• internal controls

• training programs (mandatory and optional)

Page 38: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

“but please don’t inundate us with paper!”

Page 39: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

What we provided:

• List of URL’s for policy and other related materials – 3 pages single spaced

• Research Admin-Roles and Responsibilities– 1-page matrix of who

does what

• Research Compliance Committee membership list

• Research Compliance Organizational Chart

• Detail on the course outlines for training in existence or in design

Page 40: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

The Visit

• One day (March 20)--9AM to 4:30 PM• Opening plenary session to present both NIH

overview and JHU overview• Breakout Sessions in four areas:

– Roles & Responsibilities/Education & Training– Financial Conflict of Interest– Inventions and Patents– IRB/Adverse Events

Page 41: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

The Visit (continued)

• Group and individual interviews with a dozen faculty and our Biosafety Officer

• Three opportunities for Executive Session conferences for the team

• Exit Conference

Page 42: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

The Exit Conference

• Conflict of Interest– NIH has no central file

– NIH requires reporting of all COI unlike NSF

• Adverse Events – interpretation as to

when common rule requires reporting

• Inventions and Patents– Well educated faculty

• Gene Therapy– NIH needs to clarify

guidelines for reporting (when and to whom)

– NIH knows they need to streamline and simplify the reporting process (checklists/clearing house)

Page 43: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

The Exit Conference (continued)

• General Comments– Climate, Commitment,Culture to/of excellence– JHU should have a 101 course in Research

Admininstration for Faculty – Decentralization (team approach) works!– Need for consistency in rules and regulations to

reduce confusion– Plans for Web Based Training a plus– Shadow systems:do they indicate poor systems?

Page 44: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Advice on Outcomes

• There will be no written report--no “findings” to be acted upon unless evidence of criminal activity were found

• Best practices will be written and communicated after all 10 visits done

Page 45: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

HARVARD

Page 46: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

NIH Proactive Site Review:A Perspective from Harvard University

Elizabeth Mora

Director of

Sponsored Research

Harvard University

Page 47: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Agenda

• Background and preparation

• The experience of being the first institution in “Phase Two” of the site visits

• The sentencing

• Afterthoughts

Page 48: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Background

• Here is a picture of the sequence of events timeline (view next three slides):

Page 49: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Background, cont’d

• Johns Hopkins Univ receives letter about visit

• Feb `00

• Harvard’s Office of General Counsel mobilizes task force to prepare (in case!)

• March `00

Page 50: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Background, cont’d

• NIH visits JHU, University of Texas SW, UCSF

• March `00

• Every Friday afternoon for two hours (3-5 pm) OGC convenes task force to prepare, inventory plus research current practices, etc.

• Late March• May-June-July `00

Page 51: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Background, cont’d

HarvardUniversityreceives noticeof NIH visit

NIH on campus

HarvardUniversitysighs in relief

June `00 July 19 + 20 July 21

Page 52: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Preparation Process

• The NIH’s areas of initial focus were:– Roles and Responsibility in Research

Administration– Training and Education– Financial Conflict of Interest– Human Subject - IRB Processes– Animal Care and Use Review Processes– Gene Therapy Review Process

Page 53: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Preparation Process

• The General Counsel hired a paralegal to begin gathering and compiling information, including: written procedures, training materials, website content, matrices of roles and responsibilities, sample reports, etc.

• The notebooks we sent down to NIH were enormous

Page 54: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Preparation Process

• In the meantime, two days before the visit, NIH changed the focus areas by adding two and subtracting one– Animals use was subtracted– Financial Management of Sponsored Projects– Data Safety and Monitoring were added

Page 55: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Preparation Process

• The final week was very stressful– Pulling binders of

information together– Deciding on who would

lead the Harvard sessions, where everything would happen

– Every hotel room in Boston was booked because of the Tall Ships!

Page 56: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Preparation Process

• About a week before the visit, we received detailed instructions from NIH identifying the structure and format of their visit:– Type of position with whom they wanted to

meet– The selection criteria (HU or NIH)– When and format (groups or one-on-one) (see

Appendix A)

Page 57: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Preparation Process• The visit was scheduled to be 1-1/2 days

and occur as follows:– group sessions Wednesday morning in each

focus area– One-on-one sessions Wednesday afternoon

with faculty members and administrators– The Director of Internal Audit and I developed

“mock questions” and distributed them to all involved (see Appendix B)

Page 58: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Preparation Process

• For Thursday morning, NIH requested a joint compliance presentation from Harvard and NIH to Harvard faculty and staff

• PLEASE NOTE: Harvard was the first site visit to move from “NOT FOR CAUSE” to “PROACTIVE”, indicating that the University would be taking a more proactive role in the process through the joint delivery of the Compliance Workshop

Page 59: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Experience Itself

• Okay, what REALLY happened?

• Wednesday morning, Gary Thompson and eight other NIH representatives met for an opening session with Harvard University senior administrators:

Page 60: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Experience Itself

• Mr. Thompson set a very positive tone putting us all at ease, explaining the goals and objectives of the visit– He was even funny!

• Our Provost responded by welcoming them and giving the group a high level overview of Harvard and our commitment to the research enterprise and related compliance requirements

Page 61: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Experience Itself

• Then, subgroups were divided and the morning working sessions with NIH and HU representatives began

Page 62: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Experience Itself• The morning sessions were interactive and

ended with NIH asking for feedback on how they could make improvements

• As chair of the Roles and Responsibilities Training and Education Subgroup, I raised two items:

1) Modular Grants - while this vehicle has streamlined procedures, the audit ones are still looking for detailed budgets (NIH agreed this was a problem)

Page 63: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Experience Itself

2) Training on compliance - faculty members do not take this seriously unless it comes from NIH

(Boy, did it come the following week!)

Page 64: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Experience Itself

• In the afternoon of the first day, NIH representatives met individually with faculty or in small groups of three: faculty plus department administrator . . .

• NIH requested that we reconvene at 4:30 pm . . .

Page 65: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

The Sentencing• Mr. Thompson began the session by

stating that they were very pleased with what they observed and heard, then each NIH focus area leader got up and summarized his/her thoughts

• Wednesday ended with five observations, not to be used in any report but to be possibly incorporated into a set of “best practices” to be issued after all ten site visits:

Page 66: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

The Sentencing 1) Confusion in the regulations on the

frequency of financial conflict of interest reporting

2) Cost Transfers - our policy allows cost transfers to occur up to 120 days after original transaction--NIH thought timeframe should not exceed 90 days because of FSR deadlines.

Page 67: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

The Sentencing 3) Faculty training - NIH

felt at a minimum, PI’s involved with large program projects should receive training

4) NIH noted some disparity between their interpretation of Gene Therapy regulations and our interpretation

Page 68: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

The Sentencing

5) Reliance of shadow systems - NIH noted that in a year after conversion to a new system (Oracle) we may be heavily reliant but stated that over time, they would like to see this reduced . . . (see Appendix C)

• We breathed a small sigh of relief and prepared for Thursday morning (and prayed that faculty members would show up for joint compliance training session)

Page 69: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Experience Itself

• Thursday morning at 8:30, 130 people ~ 60 faculty members packed an amphitheater at HMS

• Gary Thompson led off, then HU presented a version of the topic in response (importance of compliance, roles and responsibilities, financial management, conflict of interest, etc.)

Page 70: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Experience Itself

• 3.5 hours later . . . It was over

• Everyone was happy and relieved and those of us who had participated in the planning and preparation over the past three months, walked around aimlessly for the next several days . . .

Page 71: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Afterthoughts• We established relationships with the NIH

OPERA office and others at NIH

• The visit was helpful to those of us in research administration trying to get the faculty to pay attention

• This was a valuable exercise for us to inventory our own areas of strengths and weakness

• We will leverage the experience in the new term in policy development and training

Page 72: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Questions, Comments

Page 73: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

VANDERBILT

Page 74: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Vanderbilt UniversityNIH Compliance Site Visit

NCURA Annual Meeting

November 8, 2000

Page 75: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 76: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 77: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Vanderbilt UniversityNIH Compliance Visit

• Last of the 10 universities visited in phase 1 and phase 2

• Notified in early June and allowed to suggest possible dates for visit

• Date of visit: September 21-22, 2000

Page 78: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Vanderbilt Organizational Structure

• Single location, but complex structure

• Dual channels for research oversight

• Decentralized support operations

• Key parts under academics, financial, facilities, and treasurer

• Challenges: coordination, communication

Page 79: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 80: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 81: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 82: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Areas reviewed by NIH

• General: – Roles/responsibilities– Training/education

• Specific:– Financial management– Financial conflict of Interest– Invention reporting (technology transfer)– Gene therapy; adverse events monitoring

Page 83: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 84: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Planning and Preparation

– Medical center took lead role

– Planning committee (~20 people)• Key administrators in each compliance area

– Task Groups (3-5 members each)• For each area (financial, COI, tech transfer…)

– Integrated presentation of compliance at VU

– Also…preview meetings, edit team

– Web Site:• http://www.vanderbilt.edu/compliance/html/frame_trcp.htm

Page 85: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 86: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/compliance/html/frame_trcp.htm

Page 87: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 88: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 89: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 90: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Outcomes

– Good impression, positive feedback

– Momentum, leverage, planning for comprehensive integrated approach

– Designation of compliance officer(s)

– Monitoring group• Transinstitutional Research Operations Review Group

• Regular, periodic reviews

– Drafted roles and responsibilities statements

– Drafted comprehensive education/training plan

Page 91: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Roles and Responsibilities

• Principal Investigator • Department Chair/Center Director • Department Financial Administrative Officer • Dean's Office or Designee • Compliance Officer • Executive Administration

Page 92: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Roles and Responsibilities (cont)

• Office of Technology Transfer • Institutional Review Board • Division of Animal Care (IACUC) • Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC)/Biosafety

Officer • Office of Internal Audit • Department of Environmental Health and Safety • Sponsored Research Office• Contract and Grant Accounting

Page 93: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Roles and Responsibilities

• Animal Welfare• Environmental Health & Safety• Financial Administration of Research (Post-Award)• Financial Conflict of Interest• Human Gene Transfer• Human Subjects Protection• Institutional Commitment to Compliance• Patents & Inventions• Sponsored Programs Administration (Pre-Award)

Page 94: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Next Steps

• Further input and buy-in for Roles and Responsibility statements

• Implement training programs in new areas

• Determine how to make training systematic (and more centralized?)

Page 95: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.
Page 96: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

NIH Site Visits

START PART II

OF NIH

DISCUSSION

Page 97: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation: Did it work?• The whole is greater than the sum of its

parts...– Observations from an individual site visit offer

a limited view; however, there is significant value added with each subsequent site visit, especially when viewed cumulatively

– In this context...• three offers more than one• ten will offer more than three

Page 98: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation: Did it work?Institutional feedback…

• Proactive approach universally praised– Build a foundation of acquaintance and mutual trust– Constructive and helpful– Significant value added and provided substantial education– Open and responsive

• Humanized the NIH presence• Appreciated S-V team personality and sense of humor• Characterized the NIH approach to this initiative as “refreshing”• Collegial, interactive, fair, and instructive• Value added through discussion of issues in a non-crisis, non-adversarial manner• Raised awareness and culture of compliance• Contacts made will be useful in future• Recognized growth in NIH budget, but questioned how much of increases were

going to support “infrastructure”

Page 99: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation: Did it work?Comments by Dr. Ruth Kirschstein, Acting

Director, NIH: The PCSV’s...• Focus on the most important issues• Give us knowledge of how institutions

implement our policies• Help identify difficulties institutions face in

fulfilling Federal requirements• Help us to be both a partner and a steward• Will continue to be conducted...

Page 100: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation: What did we learn?

• Some institutions have developed a culture of compliance - compliance is a habit of mind and a habit of work

• Site visit preparation helped promote a greater awareness and appreciation of compliance

• Sharing lessons learned from PCSVs will be both essential and valuable - everyone has a place at the table

• Faculty resist “training”… they’re much more receptive to “education” … they need to understand the value added

Page 101: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation: Did it work?More from the S-V Team

• Concern over lack of NIH & IC resources (staff & $$) to provide follow-up where appropriate

• Liked structure of subject matter interviews - valuable and provided good exchange of information

• Receipt of institutional materials in advance was helpful for preparation … less was more

• Comfortable and positive approach• Continue emphasis on proactive mode• Fixed site visit team provided better continuity• CERT participation was valuable• OMB observer:

– Appreciated emphasis on responsibilities and accountability– Impressed by ability of S-V Team to provide expert feedback at end

of Day 1

Page 102: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation: More lessons learned...

• Value in preparing for Site Visit– “…NIH presence has a galvanizing impact on increasing

compliance and strengthening cultures of compliance.”

• Value in “hearing it from NIH”• Undercurrent of distrust

– Conflict of Interest– Closely related research

• Concerns about the “cost of compliance”– At the Institutions– At the NIH

Page 103: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation:“Roles & Responsibilities”

• Value in formal comprehensive roles and responsibilities matrix

• Routing sheet used as a control mechanism to help assure compliance

• Need (and desire) for more “work/discussion” groups… problem solving

• Applied Practice: Comprehensive R&R matrix organized by position and responsibility that includes both vertical and horizontal relationships. Ideally, this information should be posted on the web with links to related policies and procedures as well as to training and education opportunities and requirements.

Page 104: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation: “Training and Education”

• Many training courses available from various sources, but few have a consolidated source of training information for faculty and staff

• Strong reliance on Departmental Administrators to be the “experts” but rarely did we observe institutional support for these staff with an individual training plan reflective of a formalized education program

• Need for new PI training/education was identified in most institutions

• Applied Practice: Web-based training programs are designed to augment rather than supplant traditional classroom setting.

Page 105: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation: “Financial Management”

• At most institutions, pre-award and post-award functions were organizationally and sometimes geographically separate. The separateness of the two offices contributed to some problems related to communication and interaction between employees in the two groups.

• Lack of timely and accurate financial information was identified as problematic with regard to the financial management of projects and resulted in formal or informal “shadow” accounting systems being maintained by departments

• Applied Practice: A Sponsored Projects Expenditure Compliance Office (post-award) is extremely effective at monitoring charges to sponsored projects, identifying questionable or inappropriate charges and formally notifying appropriate institution officials.

Page 106: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation:“Financial Conflict of Interest”

• Generally, institutions do not have adequate outreach and education to their faculty regarding the PHS Financial CoI regulations.

• Faculty perceive that identifying CoIs is a “blemish” on their research or professional standing (e.g., CoI is not inherently wrong as long as once disclosed and identified it is managed, reduced, or eliminated).

• There seems to be some element of distrust between faculty and their own institution, as well as between faculty and the NIH. Some faculty expressed fear that full disclosure might result in a reduction in their institutional salary or adversely affect NIH funding.

• Applied Practice: A regularly scheduled forum where faculty is free to discuss potential conflicts with the CoI Committee and designated officials may go a long way to “de-mystify” and “decriminalize” the reporting process.

Page 107: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation:“Patents and Inventions”

• Most investigators interviewed were not familiar with the major provisions of Bayh-Dole-related regulations.

• In no case did any grantee organization have adequate human resources to regularly visit labs to “search out” subject inventions; rather, they rely on PI’s to inform them of inventions.

• Faculty members are more likely to report inventions to their technology licensing staff when they recognize benefits of technology transfer to their research program and their institution.

• Applied Practice: The strongest tech transfer programs have discretionary funds specifically earmarked for use by faculty who are in pursuit of specific licensing opportunities. When such funds had been made available, processes were in place to recoup funds out of the revenue generated once successful licensing has been accomplished.

Page 108: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation:“Clinical Trial Data and Safety

Monitoring”• Institutions generally support the need for greater attention to

data and safety monitoring of clinical trials, in the interest of both human subject protections and credibility of trial results.

• The value of trial monitoring arises from the intellectual activity of summarizing the trial results to date by the investigator and discussing them with colleagues.

• In some institutions a GCRC is involved in much of the trial research and is well positioned to monitor through its existing committee structure.

• Applied Practice: For determining the adequacy of monitoring plans, IRBs should require monitoring plans as part of their initial protocol review. At least one institution went even further, requiring that all clinical trials have a named medical monitor to check the assessment of all adverse events.

Page 109: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Evaluation:“Clinical Gene Transfer

Research”• Multi-site trials and industry-sponsored trials appear to

present additional challenges in terms of understanding who is responsible for reporting required information, when reports are to be made, and to what entities.

• Concerns were expressed that the already, and likely increasing, administrative burden associated with gene therapy research: – 1) may dissuade new investigators from pursuing this important line of

research;– 2) could increase the likelihood of inadvertent noncompliance; and– 3) necessitates additional administrative/oversight functions that are costly

and often not covered by traditional research grants.

Page 110: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

What happens next?• There will be more site visits!• We‘ll try to maintain a “proactive” approach…• Yet to be determined:

– Purpose– Nature– Scope– Selection Criteria

• Same or Different?• Do we stay focused on Top 100?• Do we use our “radar” screen? • Can institutions “volunteer” for a site visit?• How many site visits?

• Who conducts the site visit?– NIH Staff only?

• What about institutional peers? – One team? More than one team?

Page 111: INSIDE EDITION: The Scoop on the NIH Compliance Site Visits.

Long range impact...• Establish NIH presence• Proactive – Partners and Stewards together • Strengthen relationships of trust

– Within the Institution– Between Institutions and NIH – Maintain public trust

• Identify potential trouble spots and focus on prevention• Preserve biomedical research enterprise by reducing

associated risks of noncompliance• Build alliance of compliance

– We’re in this together … it’s not “us” against “you”– Accreditation??? – Certification???