Difference between pages "4.1.2 Self assessment" and "1.4.3.5 Expectations from public funders"

From EQIPD
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== ​​​​​​​​​​A. Background & Definitions ==
+
=Background and Expectations=
This item refers to one of the [[Core Requirements]]  (Core Requirement 17 - "An approach must be in place to monitor the performance of the EQIPD QS, and address identified issues") and is, therefore, considered as essential.
 
  
The self-assessment:
+
EQIPD has developed a tool to support:
* ​answers the question whether the RU has everything in place needed for proper performance of the fit-for-purpose Quality System
+
* funders willing to communicate their expectations about data management and rigor in study design, conduct, analysis, and reporting
* sets the basis for internal or external quality checks / accreditation mechanism
+
* scientists applying for funding and willing to follow best practices in research rigor
  
Depending on the organization, self-assessments may be supplemented by internal assessments conducted by qualified members outside the RU but within the same organization (e.g., dedicated quality professionals).
+
For funders:
 +
* it is expected that the tool is made freely available (e.g. as a link) on the website informing applicants about the scope of the tool
 +
* the tool provides generic expectations formulated by the EQIPD working group and can be further extended by guidance and other information specific to a funding body
 +
* it is expected that different funding bodies will decide as to whether:
 +
** the use of this tool is mandatory or not
 +
** whether a report generated by the tool should be made part of the application for funding
 +
** whether any additional information or evidence should be provided to support answers collected by the tool
  
 +
For scientists applying for funding:
 +
* the primary use of the tool is to help scientists identify potential gaps in the current practices
 +
* even if the use of the tool is not mandated by the funder, applicants may nevertheless want to add the report generated by the tool to the submission package in order to emphasize the adherence to the research practice expectations formulated by EQIPD
  
== B. Guidance & Expectations ==
+
The tool creates a "snapshot" of the environment in which research is conducted and provides scientists/organizations with the opportunity to demonstrate to funders in a structured (comparable) way that they are aware of critical quality measures/requirements and that they have implemented (most of) these in their environment.
Self-assessment must be conducted by the Process Owner who may involve other members of the RU (or delegate certain tasks).
 
  
Defining the scope and content of the self-assessment
+
It ensures that funders and applicants can align on relevant quality expectations (based on the EQIPD framework) and that all parties involved speak the “same language”.
* Process Owner should define the scope of the self-assessment (involving the RU members as needed), e.g.
 
** Are the RU's quality goals and objectives reached?
 
** Is the RU prepared to seek or maintain a formal EQIPD Quality System accreditation?
 
* Together with the RU members, Process Owner should define:
 
** How often self-assessments are to be conducted (depends on the characteristics of the RU, research that is conducted, and the risks that are likely to be encountered)?
 
** How often should the spot checks on completed studies be conducted? What is the procedure for such spot checks?
 
** Should any issues be identified, what is the procedure to address these issues? What is the procedure to address the effectiveness of the corrective measures?
 
* It is up to the Process Owner to decide whether the self-assessment procedure (with/without associated metrics) should be documented and, if yes, in what form
 
  
Conducting the self-assessment
+
This tool is NOT supposed to guide scientists how to design and conduct specific experiments.
* ​​If the EQIPD Planning Tool is used, it may be advised to support the self-assessment procedure using the Action Plan. During the period of time separating consecutive self-assessments, Process Owner (or someone to whom this task is delegated) may record all relevant information in the correponding fields of the Action Plan.  Having all information and notes in one place will facilitate the completion of the self-assessment report
 
* The solutions developed by the RU to address the EQIPD Core Requirements and beyond (e.g., in the Action Plan) shall be checked for their effectiveness (Process Owner should involve members of the research unit, as needed).  If changes are required, these should be implemented and described in the self-assessment report.
 
* The self-assessment report may be prepared using the template provided by EQIPD (please see the link below in section C).  
 
  
[[Internal assessment]]
+
=Resources=
* Goals and objectives for an internal assessment are typically set by the RU's parent organization
 
* Internal assessment is performed by a dedicated quality professional or by another trusted and qualified colleague outside the RU but within the same organization.
 
* Internal assessment assures a quality transparency towards the institution and provides additional confidence when preparing for an external assessment.
 
  
 +
* [https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:x:/s/EQIPD/ESCLBokAH8ZIuDcre3q5pp0BlN3IzHfYVr8clB9_UbT13w?e=48hlRK Excel-based tool] (The tool can be downloaded from the Online-Excel via the tab “File” in the menu, click on “Save as” and click on "Download a copy")
 +
* [https://public-funding-tool.paasp.net/survey Online version]
  
'''PLEASE DO NOT FORGET'''
 
* To make sure that all members of the RU receive access to and become familiar with the outcome of the self-assessment
 
* To act upon issues identified during the self-assessment
 
* To conduct self-assessments and spot checks at regular intervals
 
  
+
----------------
'''RISK ASSESSMENT'''
+
back to [[Toolbox]]
* For an effective self-assessment it is important to be as objective and as unbiased as possible
 
  
+
Next item: [[1.5.1 Quality policy]]​
== C. Resources ==
 
Template for documenting self-assessments
 
* Word-file [https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/EQIPD/EXa_FvHqYd9KsDjmFjFXt84BNQpl0VMFhsDCDD3d1CIMyg?e=aRcAwW 4.1.2 Self assessment.docx]
 
* Excel-file [https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:x:/s/EQIPD/EWbE3AdV5jhHglumN_MlrugBQX_KsZQDpJVNYbBJk6svTQ?e=xx0YzV 4.1.2 Self assessment.xlsx]
 
 
 
 
 
----
 
 
 
back to [[Toolbox]]​
 
 
 
Next item: [[4.1.3 External assessment]]​
 

Revision as of 14:11, 2 February 2023

Background and Expectations

EQIPD has developed a tool to support:

  • funders willing to communicate their expectations about data management and rigor in study design, conduct, analysis, and reporting
  • scientists applying for funding and willing to follow best practices in research rigor

For funders:

  • it is expected that the tool is made freely available (e.g. as a link) on the website informing applicants about the scope of the tool
  • the tool provides generic expectations formulated by the EQIPD working group and can be further extended by guidance and other information specific to a funding body
  • it is expected that different funding bodies will decide as to whether:
    • the use of this tool is mandatory or not
    • whether a report generated by the tool should be made part of the application for funding
    • whether any additional information or evidence should be provided to support answers collected by the tool

For scientists applying for funding:

  • the primary use of the tool is to help scientists identify potential gaps in the current practices
  • even if the use of the tool is not mandated by the funder, applicants may nevertheless want to add the report generated by the tool to the submission package in order to emphasize the adherence to the research practice expectations formulated by EQIPD

The tool creates a "snapshot" of the environment in which research is conducted and provides scientists/organizations with the opportunity to demonstrate to funders in a structured (comparable) way that they are aware of critical quality measures/requirements and that they have implemented (most of) these in their environment.

It ensures that funders and applicants can align on relevant quality expectations (based on the EQIPD framework) and that all parties involved speak the “same language”.

This tool is NOT supposed to guide scientists how to design and conduct specific experiments.

Resources

  • Excel-based tool (The tool can be downloaded from the Online-Excel via the tab “File” in the menu, click on “Save as” and click on "Download a copy")
  • Online version



back to Toolbox

Next item: 1.5.1 Quality policy