Previous Message | Next Message Previous in Topic | Next in Topic Previous by Same Author | Next by Same Author Previous Page (September 2005) | Back to Main CABIG_CTMS_BPSIG-L Page
	Reply | Post a New Message | Join or Leave CABIG_CTMS_BPSIG-L, or Change Options | Search
	Chronologically | Most Recent First | Wrap Text (Proportional Font) | Don't Wrap Text (Non-proportional Font)

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thread-Index: AcW6EkFwALy+QpSlQlqbIta1Ga0zzQAB5WTwAC1TZYA=
Message-ID:  <[log in to unmask]>
Date:         Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:58:57 -0700
Reply-To:     Deborah Collyar <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "caBIG(TM) CTMS Clinical Trials Best Practices SIG listserv"
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Deborah Collyar <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: PAIR/CTIP
Subject:      Re: Reviewing the first SOPs
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Collyar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Reviewing the first SOPs

Greetings,
This exchange has pointed out the reason why we need clear, understandable
procedures and communication if caBIG is to truly create a community which
develops standards that all need to use.

Both sides are seeing this from their own viewpoints, and we need to build a
common understanding so that future misunderstandings are kept to a minimum.
I suggest we proceed with some of these thoughts in mind:

1. It would be good to see the list of people who developed the SOPs to
date.  No one is questioning their good intentions, and in fact, they
deserve recognition for the work already done.
2. Setting up a procedure to vet the proposed SOPs throughout the BP SIG (or
possibly the wider CTMS or caBIG-wide community) is also important, and
needs to be done with reasonable timelines in mind.
3. A process on how SOPs will be finalized (with appropriate notice to the
caBIG community) should be clearly developed and described for all caBIG
members.
4. If the SOP of SOPs is to be effective, it may very well need to be
adopted by all caBIG members to set a consistent standard.  The key will be
to produce something that is broad enough to allow institutional variations
while providing a framework that everyone can understand and use.
5. The SOPs may need to be approved by the Strategic Planning WG (or
whomever has been set up as the peer review approval mechanism for caBIG) so
they can be used as a standard by all caBIG members.
6. Donna's points are valid and need to be resolved before going beyond the
BP SIG so that FAQs, etc. can be developed.

Thanks for listening,
Deborah

Deborah Collyar
President
PAIR: Patient Advocates In Research
925/736-8155
925/736-2836 fax
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: caBIG(TM) CTMS Clinical Trials Best Practices SIG listserv
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Donna S. Marlatt
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reviewing the first SOPs

Now that I can open and review the SOP's, I see that these SOPs were
developed by the NCI staff? So does that mean anything written by NCI is
automatically caBIG-approved? Is that correct in thinking this? I guess I
didn't hear in the teleconf that the SOPs were written by NCI staff. 

Donna

********************
Donna Marlatt
Senior Programmer - BioInformatics
Clinical Trials Management
NCCC-Dartmouth
Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
(603) 650-3413
[log in to unmask]

*******************************************
Confidentiality Notice:
This message is intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and protected
from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended
recipient, your use of this message for any purpose is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message
and notify the sender so that we may correct our records.

Center for Information Technology National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland 20892 301 594 6248 (v) 301 496 8294 (TDD) Comments and Assistance Accessibility