OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To compare the herbal medicine (HM) programs of the U.S. to those of different countries–including the European Union, South Korea, China, and India–and to examine each regulatory body’s process for obtaining market approval for HM drugs. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The European Union, South Korea, China, and India’s respective HM regulatory programs were examined and compared to the U.S. FDA’s HM process. These specific regulatory bodies were chosen based on the country’s long history with HM and/or the robustness of their existing HM review processes. International HM programs were researched using official government websites and journals published by independent, external research institutions that were accessed via USC’s library services. Data regarding the efficacy of HM policies such as HM IND approval rates, number of marketed HM drugs, and establishment of unique HM sectors will be collected. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Investigational New Drug (INDs) applications regarding HM from each country will be categorized and displayed according to their approval status in order to provide insight on a HM program’s efficiency. Results also included a table displaying common challenges for approval for HM drugs across federal regulatory bodies. If applicable, effective solutions implemented to address some of these obstacles that proved to be effective will also be displayed in the form of a table. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Tables displaying the collective flaws of international HM programs and the resulting regulatory solutions can provide clearer guidance for companies seeking to submit HM INDs and for the U.S. FDA seeking to develop improved HM regulations.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Physicians can request the clinical use of investigational products for their patients through an FDA pathway called Expanded Access (EA). Most evaluations of EA focus on the FDA submission only. We sought to evaluate these requests through the full academic medical center process. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Through the Transforming Expanded Access to Maximize Support and Study grant, we reviewed regulatory records for single-patient EA requests at four institutions (Duke University, University of Rochester, University of Michigan, and University of Texas Southwestern) which occurred between June 1, 2021 and February 28, 2023. Key data was collected, including the investigational product requested, submission and approval dates, urgency of request, and indication for treatment. Descriptive statistics were performed with Microsoft Excel. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 405 EA requests were identified, of which 319 (78.8%) were for drugs, 59 (14.6%) for biologics, and 27 (6.7%) for medical devices. The majority were characterized as non-emergency (60.7%), but the proportion of emergency to non-emergency cases varied considerably when stratified by year, with a peak in emergency cases in 2020. The most common products included therapies for COVID-19 and Mpox. Median time to obtain all approvals for treatment was 7 days for emergency cases and 28 days for non-emergency. The FDA review took the least time, with a median of 1 day in non-emergency cases. Full board approval from an institutional review board in non-emergency cases was 7 days. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: These results generally align with previous reports on EA submissions received by the FDA. The timelines for the EA process represent an important benchmark both for treatment planning and institutional improvement.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The primary purpose of the QA/QC Project Manager (PM), appointed under the NCATS UL1 administrative supplement award, is to facilitate quality and timely NCATS prior approval submissions preventing study start delays. Other goals include supporting these projects’ IRB applications and monitoring to ensure data quality and compliance. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: At the Indiana CTSI, the QA/QC PM is assigned to the Regulatory Knowledge and Support program (RKS) and functions as a unique regulatory service provider. Through monitoring, auditing, and personalized consultations, the IN CTSI QA/QC PM provides study teams with regulatory, GCP, and other compliant study conduct insights while managing NCATS prior approval and RPPR submission quality and timeliness. In contrast to many CTSAs, this role is uniquely situated within RKS and provides QA/QC support through a regulatory lens. The Indiana CTSI QA/QC PM serves on the CTSA QA/QC Lead Team collaborating with NCATS and other CTSA QA/QC personnel. The Lead Team engages with NCATS to host monthly/quarterly meetings and participate in a discussion forum of NCATS and other CTSA QA/QC personnel. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Not all CTSAs employ the QA/QC PM as regulatory support and the role and skill sets at each CTSA vary, yet the collaborative nature of these individuals across the CTSAs facilitates sharing of resources and knowledge. While prior approval and RPPR submissions vary widely, the QA/QC PMs can rely on their counterparts for guidance complying with the same regulations and policies within unique research settings and institutional nuances. The IN CTSI QA/QC PM, in collaboration with the QA/QC Lead Team, provided quality assurance revisions to the NCATS prior approval instructions which were adopted and published by NCATS January 2022 for implementation at all CTSAs. Ongoing, quality control efforts are accomplished through education, monitoring, and regulatory consultations. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: As the research environment evolves, the QA/QC PM responsibilities shift in response to needs within RKS and NCATS. The versatility of the position enables QA/QC to occur at all stages of a study. QA/QC strategies aim to facilitate communication, quality NCATS prior approval and RPPR submissions, and compliance with proposed study conduct.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To identify challenges faced by academic researchers in accessing online regulatory information and/or tools to advance their research work to develop a free, publicly accessible, interactive web portal that provides regulatory support. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Regulatory Knowledge and Support core of the Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute interviewed five local research professionals. These interviews guided the development of a Qualtrics survey, consisting of multiple responses and open-ended questions, submitted to our local institutional review board (IRB). After receiving IRB approval, the survey was disseminated via email, newsletters, flyers, and presentations targeting researchers at academic institutions and members of clinical and translational science hubs. Survey data will be used to identify the challenges academic researchers face in finding regulatory resources and to compile the types of regulatory information or tools they would find helpful for their research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: According to the interviews, researchers with extensive involvement in clinical trials found regulatory resources easily accessible compared to those with less experience. Additionally, they all stated having a colleague or regulatory specialist whom they can consult about regulatory requirements. Insights from these initial interviews confirmed the need to obtain a comprehensive view across research professionals. Anticipated results will show the challenges in accessibility, source, and type of regulatory resources researchers typically encounter. It is also anticipated that researchers will share what kinds of resources they would find most useful for their work. Ultimately, the information and tools identified as essential by survey takers will be collected and incorporated into the web portal. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Academic researchers find navigating through regulatory hurdles persistently challenging when translating their work from bench to clinic, especially since academia is typically resource-constrained. Findings from this study will allow the creation of a web portal for researchers that is broadly accessible and meets their regulatory needs.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Examine the use of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) in Huntington’s Disease (HD) clinical trials (CT) and compare across time and sponsor types. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Conduct literature review on 1. background of HD, 2. what symptoms and outcome measures are most important to patients, including the Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) meeting for HD–led by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 3. what outcome measure tools currently exist and what they measure. Utilizing Clinicaltrials.gov, trials for HD were examined to assess the number of trials conducted, what COAs were used, and funding types. Trials were filtered by study type (keep Interventional) and status (filter out suspended, terminated, unknown, and withdrawn). The frequency of COAs will then be mapped based on the symptoms from the PFDD meeting. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: From the PFDD meeting for HD, symptoms that were important to patients include cognitive impairment, depression and anxiety, and motor symptoms. From the 139 interventional studies that were active, complete, recruiting, or not recruiting, 79 studies were conducted by Industry, 3 by NIH, 93 by Other (Academia/Community Organizations), and 1 by a U.S. Federal Agency (other than NIH). One of the most commonly used COA is the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS), which includes a motor, cognitive, and behavior assessment, and an assessment on functional capacity and independence. Of the 27 out of 139 trials analyzed to date, there were a total of 37 COAs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The widespread use of UHDRS can be attributed to its standardization in 1999. It captures the symptoms of HD that are most important to patients. Because UHDRS is not sensitive to any one symptom, other COAs have been developed which focus on unique aspects of HD and allow for its earlier detection.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The FDA allows physicians to request clinical use of investigational drugs, biologics, and devices for patients with no satisfactory treatment options through a pathway called Expanded Access (EA). TEAMSS (Transforming Expanded Access to Maximize Support and Study) sought to examine single-patient cases to better characterize these patients. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We prospectively collected data on requests for single-patient EA at any one of the four collaborating TEAMSS institutions (Duke University, University of Rochester, University of Michigan, and University of Texas Southwestern) between September 1, 2021 and February 28, 2023. Regulatory and health records were reviewed for past cases that occurred between June 1, 2018 and August 31, 2021. Descriptive statistics were performed on data from the submission process, the patient demographics, the indication for treatment, and patient health status over time. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The patient population was representative with respect to the largest racial groups (69.3% White / 13.0% Black or African American) and legal sex (51.3% male / 48.7% female). All ages were represented, with overrepresentation of those 60-70 years old (16.8%) and under 10 (14.8%). Patients were most often treated for infectious diseases (44.2%) or oncologic conditions (39.0%). Those who received more than one dose stayed on treatment for 76 days (median) and up to 1427 days (maximum). At the end of study, 53.9% had completed treatment as planned, moved to commercial product, or continued treatment. Death, disease progression, or failure to respond occurred for 31.9% of patients. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The population that receives Expanded access treatments is heterogeneous in both demographics and medical conditions. Some successful treatments are continued for years. Many patients complete their treatment, and a minority experience death or disease progression during treatment.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Mayo Clinic (MC) launched the Rapid Activation Trial (RAT) pilot program in 2022 to expedite the activation of high priority and high impact clinical trials. The objective was to develop a process for rapid activation through robust screening, prioritization, and project management (PM) support. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The project team developed a robust screening and approval process for the RAT program using a combination of an objective scoring tool (based on strategic priorities) and a diverse selection committee to screen and approve eligible trials. Sponsors had to commit to RAT program timelines. Upon approval, trials were prioritized at the highest level within each business unit involved in the activation process. The number of trials approved annually were limited to 8 to manage volume and facilitate seamless prioritization with an activation timeline goal of 6 weeks. Project management support for RAT program focused on financial, regulatory, logistical, and operational elements to open trials expeditiously. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In 2022, thirteen (13) applications were received and eight (8) were approved by the RAT selection committee. The approved trials activated with a median open to enrollment time of 6.4 weeks from engaging with business units. They also aligned closely with organization’s strategic priorities, including but not limited to Investigator Initiated Trials, Multi-Site protocols, IND/IDE protocols, Rare Diseases, First in Human and Commercialization potential trials. PI and study team feedback was positive. In 2023, the RAT program was renewed due to the pilot’s significant success in 2022. The goal is to open 10 trials and 5 have been activated by the end of Q3, 2023 with a median timeline of 6 weeks. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Rapid activation of high priority and high impact clinical trials enables an organization to strategically prioritize and open complex clinical trials. This allows the delivery of innovative, timely cures to patients in an expeditious timeline.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To establish and develop a high-level, dynamic, and self-sustainable Translational Science – research center in Colombia that promotes and articulates collaborative participation among different disciplines at Universidad de La Sabana to generate impactful solutions in health to transfer the knowledge to the local community. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: With the support of core units of the University, internal funding was given for the establishment of the Research Center. An internal call was performed for recruiting researchers for multiple disciplines interested in joining the UCTS. After the researchers were selected, training of the research community in translational science and funding acquisition was performed towards the objective of interdisciplinary projects with impact in the local community. Project management strategies have been used for the follow-up of the advancements of the implementation of the UCTS. Operational structure and business plan for future self-sustainability are being designed. UCTS is proposed as an articulating party among different actors in clinics, research, and industry, for science and funding management. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: As an starting point, 8 research groups of different disciplines of the University have been integrated with the UCTS, increasing the research capacity in translational science. Internal administrative processes have been articulated within the institution and unified processes for international grants applications have been established in order to optimize the funding acquisition and management. Training programs for the research community, and community engagement activities have been offered as well. Networking relationships have been strengthened among the researchers enhancing international collaborations. Novel research projects are being designed towards real solutions in health for the local community, promoting the transference of knowledge from the benchside to the community. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The implementation of the UCTS led to the integration of disciplines within the University, towards new research projects with common interests for the local community. It has been an enriched experience using the project management approach, fulfilling a huge milestone for the University, aligned with the internal strategic priorities

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: High turnover rates of clinical trials staff pose obstacles to the quality and efficiency of conducting clinical trials. We have explored alternative staffing models to address these translational barriers and to improve the financial viability and return on investment of a centralized clinical trials office. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Implementation of an alternative clinical trials staffing model that leveraged burnout rates in clinical service areas by hiring APPs, RNs, EMTs, OTs and PTs in tandem with traditional CRAs/CRCs. Financial modelling of employing higher salaried clinical professionals was analyzed with regards to greater staff retention, trials efficiency, and operational cost savings. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since 2014, 30 of 51 (59%) staff left the clinical trials office with 49% of these leaving prior to 2 years employment. Using average local CRCII compensation values, the costs associated with these transient staff amounted to $2.51 million (i.e., recruitment, replacement, and training). Models of staffing that replace 2 CRAs, 2 CRCIs and 2 CRCIIs with an RN, APP, CRCI and 3 CRAs increases compensation by 24.1%. This increase, however, is offset by greater workload capacity, retention, and more efficient trials operations. In addition, revenue generating PI clinical activity is sustained by employing credentialed APPs for study visits. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term financial savings and greater clinical trial operational efficiency may be accomplished by seeking clinical professionals looking for alternative opportunities with greater work-life balance while leveraging their advanced clinical skills and licensing.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: In a 2022 NASEM Report, “… successful inclusion of underrepresented populations in research is investing in diverse research teams to enhance congruence and to optimize recruitment and retention success.” Thus, academic research institutions must provide safe, respectful and inclusive work environments to support diverse research teams. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Resources, policies and protocols related to disruptive research participants have not been well articulated at our institution. Given this dearth of information, we launched a new initiative across our CTSA, IRB, Office of General Counsel and Department of Population Health. The multipronged approach includes: 1) Conduct a scoping review of published and gray literature to identify best practices, trainings and resources to mitigate discrimination, harassment of research team members; 2) Co-develop new institutional policies and procedures to ensure safety and respect for both research staff and participants; 3) Develop an online training on research team field and workplace safety; and 4) Widely disseminate policies and resources to address the overall gap in academic research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our ongoing scoping review has shown that here is an overall lack of information on bias, discrimination and harassment perpetrated by research participants towards research teams. Based on our activities, new Human Research Protection policies were launched. These include defining what disruptive participant behavior in research is, the introduction of a Statement on the Conduct of Participants in Research Studies, and steps study teams may implement to manage disruptive behavior initiated by a research participate. Next steps include the development of training resources for study teams on the new policies and to introduce de-escalation and situational awareness strategies and trainings. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: As research teams become increasingly diverse, there is a need to better support them and ensure that the research field and work settings are safe, inclusive environments with articulated policies that mitigate/prevent discrimination, bias and harassment perpetrated by study participants.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: A strategic initiative of Mayo Clinic is to decrease clinical trial activation timelines by 25% from 2022 levels. The team’s goal is to streamline activation via parallel processing, improved collaboration with business units, project manager facilitation, and early study coordinator involvement. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The workgroup targeted industry trials, focusing on key financial, regulatory, and operational elements. Current state process workflows and pain points were prepared and opportunities for concurrent activities or automation identified. The scope of the project manager role from the Office of Clinical Trials was extended to guide each activation team, who have varying levels of experience, to maintain timelines until the trial is opened. Coordinators responsible for study conduct engaged in key operational discussions earlier to ensure the trial will be run successfully. A Pilot program is utilizing the identified concurrent activities, project manager support, and earlier coordinator involvement to gauge effectiveness of the proposed solutions. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The goal is for 120 industry clinical trials to join the Pilot program and to open enrollment in less than 30 weeks from being document ready. As of Q3 2023, 109 clinical trials across multiple Mayo sites have enrolled in the pilot. Thirty-five (85 percent) of 41 Pilot trials have opened to enrollment and have met the goal, with a median timeline of 24 weeks. Twenty-one (21) trials opened to enrollment in Q3 2023 with a median timeline of 23 weeks, representing 24% of all industry clinical trials opened that quarter. Opening trials and monitoring is ongoing and PI and study team feedback is positive. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Using a team-based approach, we identified key areas for optimization and parallel processing. The solution reduces trial activation timelines, increases patient access to experimental therapies, and has been positively received by study staff. Future projects will focus on enterprise implementation, optimization, and automation.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Academic research is often viewed as a necessary core mission but a financial loss requiring central or clinical funds support. We present cases as evidence of sustaining academic unit research endeavors through strategic planning and reinvestment of sponsored clinical trials residuals. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Successful endeavors are presented that demonstrate strategic reinvestment of clinical trials residuals to develop robust academic self-sustaining research programs. A multi-year strategic plan was developed leveraging residuals from sponsored clinical trials to build an academic research infrastructure supporting extramural grant applications, pilot studies, pre- and post-award management, equipment investment, and faculty incentives. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Example 1, pooling four existing department clinical trials generated yearly profits that expanded clinical trials capacity and used residuals to support a grant coordinator. Over 7 years, trial volume increased to near 50, revenue increased to $2.5 million annually, staffing increased to 20 FTEs, and extramural grant applications increased from 16 to 50. Example 2 started with a department with no infrastructure. Central support was leveraged for 6-months to support a coordinator to initiate a clinical trials program. The initial investment was offset by trials earnings by year 2, breaking even financially, while establishing a nascent yet robust infrastructure to build autonomously without additional central funding requests. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Utilizing sponsored clinical trials as a strategic investment fund, academic units can realize fiscally responsible expansion of research activities and national recognition through acquisition of extramural funding and investigator-initiated investigations.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: In Sep 2022, Johns Hopkins Research Coordinator Support Service launched Research Personnel Onboarding Program. The program on board in experienced individuals in 6-8 weeks, tailoring training plans to Investigator and study needs. It also offers Ongoing Support to enhance sustainability and adaptability. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: * Assess Principal Investigator (PI)’s need Evaluate study’s need Understand trainee’s background Develop a personalized training plan (∼6-8 weeks) Weekly updates Ongoing mentorship Research staff spend 200+ training hours, depending on their need. Training encompasses various modalities: Interactive 1:1 onboarding sessions, Online, and Instructor-led trainings and sessions cover a wide range of topics, including: * Mandatory JHU/Institutional Review Board trainings * Good Clinical Practice * Regulatory submissions * Screening/Consenting * Monitoring/Auditing * Visit conduct * Clinical skills * Soft Skills Figure 1. Chart shows cumulative onboarding hours that focus on “How” to do tasks Figure 2. Chart shows cumulative training hours that focus on regulations, ethics and “Why” for tasks RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: * The program contributed nearly 4000 hrs. of research staff training in the past 1 year * The program received 26 requests from investigators; 14 Completed the onboarding program, 1 Active, 5 Projected (Future start date), and 6 Cancelled (HR issues, lack of fund, or hired a trained staff) * 22 requests opted in the “Ongoing Support” * Ongoing Support, is averaged at 1 hr./month for the first 3-6 months. This indicates program success in empowering independent task performance * Developing REDCap request had significantly reduced meetings and paperwork * Web-Based Clockify invoicing has drastically reduced monthly manually invoicing processing time DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: * Grow the next generation of clinical research professionals * Centralize and standardize expert onboarding throughout the University * Improve outcomes, enhanced productivity, knowledge sharing, collaboration, and innovation * Decrease frustration and enhance satisfaction of trainees and departments

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The CTSI Research Infrastructure Network (RIN) expands CTSI’s reach into the regional health systems to provide our services to a broad and diverse translational science community. We create and support research collaborations that span multiple geographies and patient populations and serve as a bridge between the affiliate sites and CTSI programs. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted needs assessments at each site (n=6) via in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. Informants (n=40) included investigators, study personnel, and research administrators. Investigators were selected across a variety of departments and career stages. Interview transcripts and notes were analyzed using matrix-based qualitative methods to identify both the common and unique research infrastructure needs of each site. Individualized support plans were shared with each site and a comprehensive summary report was presented to CTSI leadership. RIN met with UCSF’s Comprehensive Cancer Center, which conducts clinical trials at 2 sites, to coordinator our effort and services. When possible, RIN addressed service requests in real time that arose during interviews. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We identified heterogeneous needs across multiple sites. However, among the community health systems with non-academic clinicians, there were common needs for research training, consultations in biostatistics/study design, and finding academic collaborators. The needs of sites with UCSF academic faculty differed from those of community sites and mainly included improved awareness and access to CTSI programs, ease of use of data extraction services, training programs, and assistance with regulatory approvals. Site needs are best addressed with individual plans created with CTSI Program leaders. A developing governance structure will include representation on a CTSI advisory committee and an annual conference to facilitate the sharing of best practices and foster collaboration across member sites. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Providing an individualized, site-specific approach to expanding CTSI services to regional health systems, will increase research collaborations across Northern California through building relationships, addressing unique infrastructure needs and sharing best practices throughout the network.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Having a strong leader in the form of an operations manager is crucial to lead and motivate teams. They're an additional set of problem-solving eyes to identify and address challenges. This poster demonstrates coordination techniques involved to work with teams of researchers, ensuring effective communication, deadlines met, and impact. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Stories, course corrections, publications, presentations and other metrics related to various projects and studies in the Lab will show such as the National Drug Early Warning System (NDEWS), Program to Alleviate National Disparities in Ethnic and Minority Immunizations in the Community (PANDEMIC, CDC), Polysubstance Use Study (PSU), and All of Us Consortium of CTSA/PACER Community Network. Additional data will be collected with project managers and students from each respective project to evaluate the effectiveness of an Operations Manager on the team across all studies in Our Lab. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: By sharing these results, showing the benefit to having an Operations Manager and the stories collected and shared for this poster, course corrections will set an example for future operations managers and their teams to continue to optimize efforts. Tis Could be a Special Interest Group (SIG)-related effort that would facilitate success to many labs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Operations management focuses on effectively managing resources, ensuring that we meet deadlines, reduce delays, and maximize team productivity. By sharing our experiences, this can be a more standard practice among research labs to have smooth operations, and increase overall reputation of our team among those in the field.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (OCTRI) Clinical Research Navigator program provides a single point of entry for clinical and translational research services, support, advice and guidance. We provide data to illustrate the Navigator model at OHSU and examine continued opportunities to optimize research resources. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Requests and activities performed by the OCTRI Navigator program, staffed by 3 FTE (2 Assistant Navigators and 1 Assistant Director) were analyzed. Navigator receives requests through multiple methods: a digital form (REDCap®), email, phone calls. Requests for services and support include focused need for a core or a broad request for multiple services for start-up: informatics, the clinical and translational research center, regulatory knowledge and support, recruitment, qualitative methods, community research, biostatistics or broad consultations. Requests are tracked in SPARCRequest. Navigator also supports wayfinding to institutional resources outside of the CTSA, matchmaking for sponsors seeking investigators, and serves as a connector and facilitator across programs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: OCTRI Clinical Research Navigator triaged an average of 964 research requests for 613 projects with 388 unique investigators annually between 2018-2022. Navigator also fields more than 80 calls each year that are unrelated to CTSA projects. Project requests are examined to illustrate trends in projects requesting multiple services and display how Navigator simplifies project intake and connects researchers to resources they may have not recognized they needed. Project attributes including funding type and funding status are included in this review. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: CTSA resources are essential to the infrastructure available to researchers. While absolute numbers of requests provide little insight into the impact each CTSA hub may have, the timing and clustering trends of projects with multiple program requests shows how a combination of technology and experienced staff can efficiently support researchers.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Seeking ways to support teams in the preparation for and the implementation of the new National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy for Data Management and Sharing (DMSP), the integrated Translational Health Research Institute of Virginia (iTHRIV) partnered with the UVA Health Sciences Library to develop training and resources for researchers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Health sciences librarians and iTHRIV (an NIH-NCATS supported Clinical Translational Research Institute) convened a Working Group, inviting representatives from central and unit-specific research support offices (e.g. the Comprehensive Cancer Center), research compliance, regulatory affairs, sponsored programs, institutional review boards, libraries, and data science to review and discuss the DMSP requirements. After an initial orientation to the policy, the group reviewed existing public resources and solicited feedback about steps to best support UVA researchers in compliance. Leveraging the broad expertise of the group, the team provides guidance to researchers on writing the DMS plan and choosing a data repository, and provides tools and templates to support implementation of the policy. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A library-created website provided policy guidance, including links to NIH-hosted information, resources created by other institutions, and new UVA-specific templates and suggested proposal language. Librarians led a webinar on the new policy and UVA resources which included a speaker from UVA regulatory affairs to describe the new DMSP requirements, and a tour of the new guide. The guide has been viewed over 5000 times to date and librarians have provided consultations and training to individuals and departments. Current plans include developing a user satisfaction survey, reviewing DMSP feedback from submitted proposals, and incorporating lessons learned into the website and future training. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The collaboration between iTHRIV and the Health Sciences Library to support the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy was a successful partnership that provided leadership at the institutional level to communicate with and engage researchers and utilized the library’s web presence, expertise, and service model to provide direct support.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: A Mayo Clinic in Florida committee completes 100+ Scientific Reviews annually through manual e-mail and Excel tracking, placing a manual burden on reviewers and coordinators. REDCap, an electronic data capture system, was leveraged to reduce the administrative burden.#_ftn1 #_ftnref2 METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Historically, emails were sent by a coordinator to physicians, requesting their initial review and following up with reminders. This process was tracked using Excel, presenting a need to make this process more efficient, so a workgroup was created. To ensure all perspectives were accounted for, the workgroup included the review coordinator, a physician reviewer, and study team members who submit development requests for studies. The process was mapped using the existing Excel spreadsheet, and email templates. Critical data elements were identified, ensuring the database would identify bottlenecks. Two REDCap instruments were then created: one to outline the coordinator workflow and a survey for physician reviewers to complete the scientific reviews. #_ftn2#_ftnref1 RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The workflow is live in REDCap and has effectively processed over 100 scientific reviews in <1 year. The system captures the review status and guides the coordinator through the workflow, capturing dates when tasks are completed. When review criteria are met, the database sends an email to the assigned reviewer. The email includes a link to a REDCap survey, containing all pertinent documents. The reviewer uploads their completed review form within the survey, if this is not completed within a given period, the database sends email reminders. Once the review is complete, a notification is sent to the review coordinator. The review workflow is accessible to the study team who requested scientific review, making them aware of their request status ad giving them access to the review the moment it is completed. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Leveraging REDCap has increased visibility, reduced overall manual processes, and simplified the reviewer burden by providing all the information needed in a single notification. REDCap is a cost-effective, impactful solution to simplifying administrative burden in managing committee reviews.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Identify causes for clinical research professional turnover Define data collection methods for exit interviews Provide institutions with resources to collect and analyze exit interviews Employ strategies to maximize the impact of exit interviews on retention METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Clinical Research Professional Taskforce (CRPT) exit interview Subgroup has met monthly since January 2023. Action items were agreed to and minutes were kept and reviewed at subsequent virtual working meetings. All members were given opportunity to speak and contribute. After a landscape analysis, conducted via survey, five institutions agreed to provide examples of their exit interview questions. Members spoke at length about goals, methods, collection techniques, institutional involvement, lessons learned and practical applications that could become best practices. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The Subgroup aggregated all questions into categories and developed sample questions incorporating all data without using any word for word. In order to allow for quantitative assessment and standardized reporting the Subgroup formulated questions to be responded to utilizing a Likert scale with free text fields for select questions where further information is needed. The Subgroup developed best practices describing decision-making metrics, understanding reasons for turnover and reporting data back to leadership. Practical aspects such as method and time of survey collection, anonymity, and training staff are also included. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We are hopeful that sample questions and best practices will be helpful and widely utilized. Understanding the causes and impacts of CRP turnover are critical to meeting the current needs of clinical research. Further work is being done to calculate the cost of turnover to make the business case.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Our vision is to build community amongst the Midwest CTSAs, harnessing our collective expertise to collaborate on translational science challenges and meet the needs of our region. We aim to create opportunities to network, share ideas, brainstorm solutions, address translational science topics, and achieve a range of deliverables. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Three individuals from the Chicago CTSAs (NUCATs, CCTS, and ITM) had been networking for a year and desired to increase opportunities to collaborate amongst other CTSAs. We developed an initial vision for a new group that would extend across the region, and we invited the TIN POCs from 16 Midwest CTSAs to join. In September, 2022, the group was launched with 20 members from 12 CTSAs. We hosted 12 monthly meetings via Zoom to discuss various topics (i.e., staffing, career training, e-consent, research design, and recruitment tools) via round tables or presentations. We developed a Google Sites website with resources, a discussion forum, and a group calendar. We solicited feedback via survey and follow-up discussion (i.e., most valuable about the group and what can be improved). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: During the past year, our membership grew to more than 30 participants, representing 16 CTSAs in nine Midwest states (IL, IA, IN, MI, MN, MO, KT, OH, WI). We engaged a total of 45 individuals at our meetings, with an average of 11 participants per meeting. Our discussions were lively and stimulated additional conversations, requests for guidance, sharing resources, etc., beyond the meetings. Feedback from the group was overwhelmingly positive. Members found many aspects of the group to be valuable (i.e., learning initiatives, processes, and best practices at other CTSAs) and provided practical suggestions for improvement (i.e., themes across a quarter or year). Members expressed interest in additional collaborations such as subcommittees, papers, and other initiatives. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We created a regional CTSA community that is very enthusiastic to convene, share innovations developed at their CTSA hubs, and assist one other. Future directions include an in-person retreat in the spring. Our approach can serve as a potential roadmap for developing regional CTSA collaborative groups across the nation.