Skip to main content

3.1 Assessing the Need for Increased Monitoring, Interim Continuing Review, and Verification from Sources Other than the PI

Last Revised: 10/14/2026

1.0 Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to describe the Organization’s requirements for determining the need for 1) IRB review more often than annually, 2) increased monitoring, and 3) verification from sources other than the PI that no material changes have occurred since previous IRB review.

2.0 Policy

  • 2.1. It is the policy of the Organization that that all non-exempt research will be assessed at both initial and continuing review as per the requirements of 45 CFR 46.108(a)(3)(ii) and of 21 CFR 56.108(a)(2), and all applicable state and local laws.

3.0. IRB Responsibilities

  • 3.1. Increased Monitoring and/or Interim Continuing Review
    • 3.1.1. At the time of initial review, continuing review, or any other event, the IRB will assess whether a research protocol requires increased monitoring and/or interim continuing review. Types of research which might require such actions include, but are not limited to:
      • 3.1.1.1. Studies that utilize drugs or treatments associated with a higher than typical risk of toxicity.
      • 3.1.1.2. Studies where there is an expectation of high morbidity and mortality due to the underlying medical condition of the subjects.
      • 3.1.1.3. Studies whose design includes one or more group of subjects who will receive less than standard care (for example, use of placebo where there is an acceptable alternative treatment, or withholding standard treatments during some point in the study).
      • 3.1.1.4. Studies whose design includes a significant risk intervention that is performed solely for research purposes.
      • 3.1.1.5. Studies where the FPBCC Scientific Review Committee (SRC), or other equivalent scientific review body, has indicated the need for interim review or additional monitoring.
      • 3.1.1.6. Any other situation where the IRB believes that increased monitoring or interim continuing review will meaningfully protect the rights and welfare of human subjects of the research.
    • 3.1.2. If the IRB determines that there is a need for increased monitoring, the board will also determine how such monitoring should be accomplished. Options for increased monitoring include, but are not limited to, (1) submission of interim reports by the PI, or (2) auditing of PI records by the IRB.
    • 3.1.3. If the IRB determines that there is a need for more frequent continuing review, the IRB approval period will be set accordingly.
  • 3.2. Verification from Sources Other than the Investigator
    • 3.2.1. At the time of initial review, continuing review, or any other event, the IRB will assess whether a research protocol requires verification from sources other than the PI that no material changes have occurred since the previous IRB review. Types of research which might require such action include, but are not limited to:
      • 3.2.1.1. Research performed by investigators with a history of significant noncompliance, recurrent delays in submitting amendments, or failure to respond to IRB review letters or other correspondence in a timely manner.
      • 3.2.1.2. Research conducted at external sites where the UNMC IRB is the IRB of record.
    • 3.2.2. If the IRB determines that verification from sources other than the PI is necessary, the board will also determine how such verification should be accomplished. Options include, but are not limited to, auditing of PI records by the IRB.

DOCUMENT HISTORY:

 Written: 1/8/2016 (Approved: 1/8/2016) - original author not recorded

 Revised: 1/2/2018 - revision not documented

 Revised: 10/14/2026 – revision of regulatory citations (section 2.1); stylistic changes