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