Casey Shannon L, Burnside Elizabeth S, Brasier Allan R
Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
University of Wisconsin Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Oct 14;8(1):e162. doi: 10.1017/cts.2024.575. eCollection 2024.
External advisory committees (EACs) are critical peer-review meetings that drive improvement at Clinical and Translational Science Award Program Hubs. Despite their ubiquity, evaluations of EAC optimization and effective implementation remain scarce. We present a two-tiered approach to optimizing EAC meetings through (1) in-depth, topically focused "pre-review" meetings comprised of external topic experts and at least one standing "full-board" EAC member, followed by (2) a traditional "full-board" EAC meeting. This approach allowed pre-review discussion of program-focused topics and specific recommendations, later delivered to the full-board for review and direction. To evaluate this approach, we interviewed 18 people who planned, administered, or attended pre-review and/or full-board meetings, including internal Hub staff, external topic experts, and standing EAC members. Thematic analysis was used to explore planning, implementation, and value of our two-tiered approach the traditional single full-board approach. Interviewees preferred the two-tiered approach, noting benefits including additional time to reflect, shared identification of strengths and challenges, and discussion of solutions to share later with the full-board. Those who attended pre-review meetings described building "," rather than ," relationships with invitees through more discussion and inter-hub sharing. That increased sharing invited more exploration, discussion, and planning of next steps toward innovation.
外部咨询委员会（EACs）是推动临床与转化科学奖计划中心改进的关键同行评审会议。尽管其普遍存在，但对EAC优化和有效实施的评估仍然很少。我们提出了一种两层方法来优化EAC会议，方法是：（1）由外部主题专家和至少一名常设“全体委员会”EAC成员组成深入、主题聚焦的“预评审”会议，随后是（2）传统的“全体委员会”EAC会议。这种方法允许对以计划为重点的主题和具体建议进行预评审讨论，随后提交给全体委员会进行审查并给出指导。为了评估这种方法，我们采访了18位计划、管理或参加预评审和/或全体委员会会议的人员，包括中心内部工作人员、外部主题专家和常设EAC成员。采用主题分析法探讨我们的两层方法（与传统的单一全体委员会方法）的规划、实施和价值。受访者更喜欢两层方法，指出其好处包括有更多时间进行思考、共同识别优势和挑战，以及讨论解决方案以便稍后与全体委员会分享。参加预评审会议的人员表示，通过更多讨论和中心间分享与受邀者建立了“……”而非“……”的关系。这种增加的分享引发了更多对创新下一步的探索、讨论和规划。
