Introducing IRAP: C&W’s New Institutional Research Approvals Portal

Introducing IRAP: C&W’s New Institutional Research Approvals Portal

by Jennifer Clayton

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought Computing & Cybersecurity UFBusiness applicationsUFLEnterprise software
🎙 Jennifer Clayton 👥 251 📅 January 29, 2026 ⏱ 59 min 👁 36 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-16
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

IRAPinstitutional approvalREDCapresearch administrationprocess improvement

Summary

The video is a presentation by Jennifer Clayton, Director of Clinical Research Operations at BC Children’s Research Institute, introducing the new Institutional Research Approvals Portal (IRAP) for Children’s and Women’s Health Centre. She outlines the current paper-based process for institutional approvals, which requires separate forms and signatures from various program areas, leading to challenges such as lack of transparency, unclear approval pathways, and poor communication. Based on feedback from research teams and program leaders, they identified requirements for an electronic system: standardized processes, program flexibility, transparency, accountability, improved communication, customization, metrics, automatic routing, and fiscal sustainability. After piloting an in-house system (EUP) built on Apex, they found it not scalable and explored other options, including integrating with RISE, but ultimately chose REDCap due to its customizability and in-house expertise. IRAP will launch as a hybrid model, with some programs fully integrated and others using uploaded paper forms. The presentation includes a demo of the system, showing a dashboard for tracking approvals, and discusses eligibility criteria for submitters, requiring a site PI with research institute membership or clinical appointment. The Q&A addresses concerns about the PI requirement and data access approvals.

190 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The presentation provides valuable insights into the operational challenges of research approvals and the rationale behind developing a new electronic system. The argumentation is based on stakeholder feedback and practical experience, making it credible for an institutional audience. However, it lacks quantitative data or comparative analysis with other systems, and the benefits are presented qualitatively. The speaker effectively justifies the need for change and the choice of REDCap, but the evidence is largely anecdotal.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The presentation is rigorous in its internal process, drawing on direct feedback from research teams and program leaders. However, no external sources or published literature are cited, limiting the scientific grounding. The title accurately reflects the content, which is a straightforward introduction to the new portal. The speaker’s role adds authority, but the lack of external validation and the absence of measurable outcomes reduce the overall scientific rigor.

157 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content, which introduces the new IRAP portal for institutional research approvals.

Quality & Reliability

7/10

The presentation is based on internal institutional experience and stakeholder feedback, but lacks external validation or published evidence. The speaker is the director of clinical research operations, lending credibility, but the content is largely descriptive and procedural.

Key Moments

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

Contribution & Novelties

The presentation offers an original contribution by detailing the development and implementation of a custom institutional research approvals portal using REDCap, addressing specific operational challenges. It provides a practical example of process improvement in a healthcare research setting. For further exploration, consider the following:

  • REDCap — The platform used for IRAP, known for its flexibility in building research databases.
  • Research Ethics Boards — The role of ethics approval in research, which is distinct from institutional approval.
  • Clinical Research Operations — Overview of clinical research processes and management.

87 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows moderate scores across all dimensions, with slightly higher scores in quantity of information and reliability, reflecting the detailed but non-quantitative nature of the presentation. The technical level is moderate, suitable for a general research audience.

Reliability 7/10

💬 No comments were provided for analysis.