Search

In this paper, we address how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted informed consent for clinical research through examining experiences within Clinical and Translation Science Award (CTSA) institutions. We begin with a brief overview of informed consent and the challenges that existed prior to COVID-19. Then, we discuss how informed consent processes were modified or changed to address the pandemic, consider what lessons were learned, and present research and policy steps to prepare for future research and public health crises. The experiences and challenges for CTSA institutions offer an important perspective for examining what we have learned about informed consent and determining the next steps for improving the consent process.

The ability to effectively lead an interdisciplinary translational team is a crucial component of team science success. Most KL2 Clinical Scholars have been members of scientific teams, but few have been team science leaders. There is a dearth of literature and outcome measures of effective Team Science Leadership in clinical and translational research. We focused our curriculum to emphasize Team Science Leadership, developed a list of Team Science Leadership competencies for translational investigators using a modified Delphi method, and incorporated the competencies into a quantitative evaluation survey. The survey is completed on entry and annually thereafter by the Scholar; the Scholar’s primary mentor and senior staff who educate and interact with the Scholar rate the Scholar at the end of each year. The program leaders and mentor review the results with each Scholar. The survey scales had high internal consistency and good factor structure. Overall ratings by mentors and senior staff were generally high, but ratings by Scholars tended to be lower, offering opportunities for discussion and career planning. Scholars rated the process favorably. A Team Science Leadership curriculum and periodic survey of attained competencies can inform individual career development and guide team science curriculum development.

Introduction and Methods The Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) program began in 1976 and transitioned into a 3-year Master’s degree program in 2006 when Rockefeller joined the National Institute of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award program. The program consists of ∼15 trainees supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Award KL2 award and University funds. It is designed to provide an optimal environment for junior translational investigators to develop team science and leadership skills by designing and performing a human subjects protocol under the supervision of a distinguished senior investigator mentor and a team of content expert educators. This is complemented by a tutorial focused on important translational skills. Results Since 2006, 40 Clinical Scholars have graduated from the programs and gone on to careers in academia (72%), government service (5%), industry (15%), and private medical practice (3%); 2 (5%) remain in training programs; 39/40 remain in translational research careers with 23 National Institute of Health awards totaling $23 million, foundation and philanthropic support of $20.3 million, and foreign government and foundation support of $6 million. They have made wide ranging scientific discoveries and have endeavored to translate those discoveries into improved human health. Conclusion The Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) program provides one model for translational science training.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: There is universal recognition of the importance of team science and team leadership. We have developed a semi-quantitative translational science specific team leadership competency assessment tool and have begun implementation studies to assess the impact of personalized feedback on the team science leadership skills of KL2 Clinical Scholars. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To create the instrument, we employed a modified Delphi approach by conducting a thorough literature review on Leadership to concretize the relevant constructs, then used these extracted constructs as a springboard for the Rockefeller Team Science Educators (TSE’s) to discuss and refine the leadership domain areas, collectively create domain-specific survey items. Further discussion helped refined the number, grouping, and wording. Scholars also contributed feedback in item development. We piloted the Leadership Survey by having all of the Rockefeller TSEs rate Clinical Scholars, and having each Scholar rate themselves. Each item was answered using a six-point Likert scale where a low score indicated poor expression and a high score represented excellent expression of the specific leadership attribute. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Incorporation into a REDCap data base made consenting and rating process by TSE’s and the Scholars straightforward. The a priori domains (Foundational Leadership Competencies, Professionalism, Team Building and Team Sustainability, Appropriate Resource Use and Study Execution, and Regulatory Accountability) had high internal validity and good internal factor structure. The congruence between TSE and Scholar self-ratings were uniformly high, and discordance was often a function of “confidence” and “modesty” on the part of the scholar, rather than deficiency. Supporting comments were informative about performance barriers and mechanisms for improvement. Return of results allowed for the exploration of training gaps. Scholars were surveyed to gauge their reaction to the formal feedback. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This quantification of team science leadership constructs has allowed for A)- the articulation of constructs essential for successful Translational Scientists to acquire during their training, B)- identification of gaps in that training and skill set, and C)- mechanisms for bolstering any identified gaps in these essential leadership constructs. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESCRIPTION: None

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We have developed a comprehensive Translational Research Navigation Program to guide investigators all the way from protocol development through study closure. As the program evolved, we initially developed organizational tools and then restructured them into a series of checklists to ensure that critical elements were not excluded or duplicated. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A series of checklists to assure that all research elements, including regulatory, scientific, and institutional, are addressed from protocol inception through study closure were developed by clinical research coordinators/navigators. The checklists are periodically updated and modified to reflect changing local and national regulations and policies. The first tool became the “Protocol Development Checklist” and then additional tools were developed and modified into a suite of navigation checklists that include “Protocol Implementation Checklist,” “Protocol Conduct Checklist,” and “Protocol Completion Checklist.” RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The checklists have been incorporated into the Translational Research Navigation Program and have enhanced the organization and quality of protocols throughout their lifespan. For example, implementation of the Protocol Development Checklist resulted in a reduction in time to IRB approval (currently 10 days), and implementation of the Protocol Implementation Checklist has impacted the time from IRB approval to study start-up. The Protocol Conduct Checklist has aided investigators in being better prepared and more organized for study conduct activities and the Protocol Closure Checklist has assured timely protocol closure and regulatory compliance, including reporting to ClinicalTrials.gov. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Protocol checklists are powerful tools to enhance thoroughness, organization, and quality of the clinical research process. The Rockefeller University protocol checklists are available to the CTSA and Scientific Communities. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESCRIPTION: NA.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To create the instrument, we employed a modified Delphi approach by conducting a thorough literature review on Leadership to help concretize the relevant constructs, and then usied these extracted constructs as a springboard for the Rockefeller Team Science Educators (TSE’s) to discuss and refine the leadership domain areas, collectively creating domain-specific survey items, and then further discussed and refining the number, grouping, and wording of the items. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We piloted the Leadership Survey by having all of the Rockefeller TSEs rate Clinical Scholars. Each item was answered using a six-point Likert scale where a low score indicated poor expression of the specific leadership attribute and a high score represented excellent expression of the specific leadership attribute. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Means, medians, standard deviations, and ranges of each item were calculated and tabulated. A complete (Pearson) correlation matrix was computed so that the raw inter-item relationships can be observed. For each a priori Domain an equal weighted summary scale was created and tabulated for review. The internal consistency of each a priori scale was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha (α). Items with low Item to Construct coefficients were candidates for elimination or modification, and overall scales with low’s will undergo further discussion. To challenge our assumptions of the construction and integrity of each domain, we employed exploratory Principal Components Analysis (PCA), followed by orthogonally rotated Factor Analysis (FA). We also forced the PCA / FA analysis to extract the a priori dimensions that allowed us to compare if the empirical and a priori structures match. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: We are partnering with the CTSA programs at Penn and Yale to assess issues of generalizability and scalability. We are working with Vanderbilt to install survey onto REDCap for ease of dissemination. Will continue to assess psychometric properties and refine as we receive more input.