Post on 19-Jun-2015
description
Grant funding:How I finally found a research problem I was passionate about and the money to
work on it….
Good idea Experience and training Expertise (and/or consultants with expertise) Institutional support Finite scope of work Preliminary data
Funding prerequisites
Simulation
Patient Safety
Crew resource management
Ideas
Simulation based patient safety curriculum for ED providers
Background Grant writing workshop-Stephen Russell
List serves-EMSC, NIH, AHRQ Automatic updates from PubMed and
relevant journals
Endnote library- update this on an ongoing basis
AHRQ publishes RFA Sept, 2004
AHRQ conference Sept, 2004◦ Project officer-listen to advice◦ Read the RFA carefully
Technical Assistance calls
Finding the Right Funding Opportunity
Partnerships in ImplementingPatient Safety (PIPS)Technical Assistance
Conference Call (rev 10/05/04)
October 6, 2004
Project officer for the RFA-Eileen Hogan
Section head for patient safety-Jim Battles◦May give you advice to talk to other people---do it◦ Advice on consultants and what aspects of application to
emphasize-DOD, Bob Wears, and references to use.
Talk some more
TALK ….Alot
AHRQ recommended specific individuals◦ Recommended Bob Wears
in England for a year
◦ Contacted him anyhow and discussed project◦willing to work with me.
Consultants
READ RFA-exhaustively- many times
Structure Grant to address all of the key elements◦ Portfolio◦ Priority populations◦ Required elements of RFP
Talk to project officers about specific questions, ideas. This is their job and they are willing to do it. Take advantage of their knowledge.
Specific Aims Significance Innovation Approach: for each specific aim◦ Feasibility and Justification of Approach◦ Review of Relevant Literature◦ Preliminary work◦ Design◦ Expected outcomes◦ Potential Problems and Alternative Strategies
Timeline Future directions
Structure
Write and re-write◦ finish at least one month before deadline if at all possible.◦ Check NIH website for examples of “good grant writing”
also grant writing workshop tips
Multiple reviewers ◦ internal and external to the institution◦ Revise again and again
PHS 398-rules change frequently Specific instructions for each section Fonts and types specified Specific federal identifiers and assurances required
from the institution◦ Institutional officer ◦ Specific requirements on electronic submission from the
institution In house grant review◦ Eventually need IRB approval, but not before grant
submission
Grant forms
Budget◦Need individual with business/finance
experience
◦Direct and indirect costs
◦Modular vs non-modular budget Sponsored programs
Meet the deadline With electronic submission, website often
overwhelmed on due date If at all possible upload a couple of days before due
date. ◦ Avoid the rush and time to fix warnings, etc
Agency Administrative review prior to going being assigned to the study section
Logistics
Group of experts-balanced to cover the areas assigned to that study section◦ Clinical and non-clinical◦ Statisticians◦ Bioinformatics
Regular and ad hoc members Not necessarily expert in your field Have own personality Scientific Review Officer and staff
What is a Study Section?
Section members with conflicts will recuse selves from review of relevant grants- out of room and results of discussion not discussed.
Grants assigned to a primary and two secondary reviewers
Primary reviewer is charged with presenting grant to entire section –is your advocate or not
Secondary reviewers may agree or disagree All reviewers write critiques and complete the
evaluation form
Once assigned to a study section
Section members with conflicts will recuse selves from review of relevant grants- out of room and results of discussion not discussed.
Grants assigned to a primary and two secondary reviewers
Primary reviewer is charged with presenting grant to entire section –is your advocate or not
Secondary reviewers may agree or disagree All reviewers write critiques and complete the
evaluation form
Once assigned to a study section
Published in RFP and online for each agency
Each reviewer provides a rating for each category
Overall priority rating is not an average or reflection of the scores provided in each category
Review Criteria
Review all grants assigned personally
Often read all or part of grants not assigned to them, but for which they have interest or expertise
Most reviewers, not assigned to a particular grant, will be seeing grant for the first time when it is presented.
Reviewers
Each reviewer assigned 6-8 grants for review Written reviews are uploaded and viewed by study
section members prior to the meeting Grants whose 3 scores fall below the 50th %tile
will be nominated for “streamlining” (formerly triage) as one of the first items of action of the study section.
Any member who wishes to discuss any grant has veto power and the grant will be discussed
Logistics
Once streamlining completed, typically approximately 50 grants will be left for discussion over 2 days. Anyone with conflict leaves during discussion of that grant◦Grant presented by primary reviewer◦Additional comments by secondary reviewers◦Open discussion◦Revised scores◦Each study section member assigns an overall
score to the grant
Logistics
Good idea Responsive to RFP Following the rules Tell a good story that progresses logically Conceptual framework Expertise to do the work (if novice, expert
collaborators ) with enough effort to make the work feasible
What are study section members looking for
Realistic Scope of work
Statistician
Reasonable budget-not greedy but also not so low as to make it unlikely to be able to complete the work
◦Capital expenses and brick and mortar are not looked upon favorably
What are study section members looking for
Grant is easy to read and progresses logically◦ Tells a compelling story◦ Leave white space and space between paragraphs
Easy to find required elements of grant◦Underline, italicize or bold the required elements and
identify them as such
Following the instructions-demonstrates attention to detail
What helps you
Lack of relevant literature search especially if you did not cite an expert member of the study section
Poor writing, difficult to follow narrative Missing or difficult to find elements Absence of conceptual framework Absence of letters of support or collaboration letters Sloppy or missing “other required elements” including
human subjects, priority populations, resource sharing plans. Should not be an afterthought.
What hurts you
Make it easy for the reviewers to read and understand your grant; they are not necessarily experts in the field of your proposal
Your goal is to turn the reviewers of your grant into enthusiastic advocates for your proposal
Remember, all section members provide a score and most are going to be looking/hearing about your grant for the first time during the discussion.
The total process will take about 15-30 minutes.
You want the first words the primary reviewer says to be “I loved this grant”.
Your score Summary statement: if asked, ◦ Respond to all comments and questions◦ Provide “just in time” documentation
IRB approval Additional budget information
Funding decision and you are on your way
Waiting for….
Questions?
Also Check outhttp://www.ahrq.gov/fund/ragendix.htm