Home
How it works

How it works: one project, two boards, one consistent story.

A Chamberlain DNP project usually answers to two review bodies, and the slower one sets your start date. This page is the whole route, station by station: what each board wants, the three moves we make on every file, every document that goes into both submissions, and what happens when a board sends the file back.

In short

We handle the entire Chamberlain IRB process end to end, on both boards: the determination and the plan, every document, the submission to each board, and every reply until both approvals are in writing. The project, the data and the findings stay yours; each board’s decision is its own. It begins with a free application review that tells you, in writing, which board to open first, and whether you need us at all.

The two tracks

Board one is Chamberlain’s review: a file you control, filed through Chamberlain’s current IRB portal. Board two is your practicum site’s review: a calendar you don’t control, run by the site’s own IRB of record or nursing-research council. Both tracks open at once, and data collection begins only where they converge.

Board one — Chamberlain’s review, station by station

CITI training current. The certificate must be valid, in the modules Chamberlain’s current handbook or IRB portal names, before anything is filed. An expired or mismatched certificate stalls an otherwise finished application.
The QI frame settled. A DNP project is quality improvement by design; the purpose, the measures and the dissemination plan have to say so consistently, because the board reads the pages, not the label on the folder.
The application in Chamberlain’s current format. Answered the way review coordinators read, appendices ordered the way the portal expects, the site permission letter attached. The format of record is the one posted today, not the one your cohort remembers.
Filed to Chamberlain’s current portal. The portal is tied to your own account; the filing is assembled to the last field and goes in with us on the line.
The determination in writing. Chamberlain’s review commonly closes as a determination, a written classification of the file. It binds Chamberlain’s board and no one else.

Board two — the site’s review, station by station

Find the board of record. Hospital systems and health networks very often keep an IRB of record or a nursing-research council. The question goes to the site’s research office, in writing, before anything is planned around the answer.
Liaison and support letter secured. Your site liaison signs a facility support letter and a site permission letter naming what you may access: people, units, data. The letter opens the door to the site’s board; it does not close the review.
The council’s calendar in hand. Submission dates, meeting dates, what the council wants in the packet. This is the single fact that most often reorders an entire project.
The site’s own application. Its forms, its vocabulary, its definition of research. The same file Chamberlain calls QI can convene a site board, so the packet is written to the stricter read.
Site approval in writing. A separate document from a separate board. Neither approval substitutes for the other.

Open the site’s track first. It runs on other people’s calendars; Chamberlain’s track is a file you control. The Chamberlain file is assembled while the site’s board works through its agenda, and both files tell one story.

The three moves on every file

Whatever the site, whatever the project, the practice makes the same three moves in the same order. The free application review comes before all of them and costs nothing; the three packages are simply how far down this line you hand the file over.

1. The determination and the plan

We read the project against both tracks and settle the determination each board will make: quality improvement or research, on Chamberlain’s side and on the site’s. From that reading comes the plan: which boards you answer to, which to open first, what each wants in its file, the site board’s calendar in writing, and the document list. Nothing is drafted until this is settled, because a file written before its framing is settled is the file that comes back.

2. The file — every document, both boards

Every document both boards read, built once and version-matched across both files: the Chamberlain application in its current format, the site’s own application packet, consent and information sheets carrying every required element, recruitment materials, instruments aligned to the measures, the data-security plan, and the site permission and facility support letters drafted for your liaison’s signature. The two files say the same thing in two vocabularies.

3. The submissions and every reply

Both submissions go in, the site’s first. Then every reply to either board until both approvals are in writing: revision responses quoted and answered point by point, amendments when the project changes, continuing review for as long as the project runs. You are copied on everything and you sign what only you can sign; the correspondence is ours to carry.

The project, the data and the findings are yours; the boards’ decisions are their own. Everything in between, the plan, the documents, both submissions, every reply, we handle, end to end.

Every document, and which board reads it

The complete file for a two-board Chamberlain project. Which form each board actually requires is set by Chamberlain’s current handbook or IRB portal and by the site’s own board; the list below is what the practice prepares and checks on every file.

Document	Board one — Chamberlain	Board two — the site	Who signs or owns it
CITI training certificates	Required, in the modules Chamberlain currently names; current on the filing date.	Often requested; a site board may name modules of its own.	You complete the training; we check modules and dates and file the certificates in both packets.
The IRB application	Chamberlain’s current form, in Chamberlain’s current portal.	The site’s own facility or research application, in the site’s vocabulary.	Prepared by us; filed through your portal account with us on the line; the site’s packet filed to its board.
Consent or information sheet	Required elements as Chamberlain’s current guidance sets them.	Identical text; written to the stricter of the two reads.	Drafted by us; reviewed by you; one version in both files.
Recruitment materials	Flyers, scripts, emails as used.	The same materials, plus anything the site requires for its staff or patients.	Drafted by us to the plan; the site may require its own template.
Instruments and measures	Aligned to the QI aims and the measures named in the application.	The same instruments, with the site’s data-use terms reflected.	Yours where they are yours; aligned and appended by us.
Data-security plan	Storage, access, de-identification, retention, destruction.	The same plan, word for word; identifiable patient data is the line most site boards will not read past.	Drafted by us; one plan that reads the same on both boards.
Site permission letter	Appendix to the Chamberlain application.	Opens the site’s process; it is not the site’s approval.	Drafted by us for your site liaison’s signature.
Facility support letter	Often requested alongside the permission letter.	Commonly required in the site’s packet.	Drafted by us; signed by the site.
Data-use terms	Reflected in the data-security plan.	In the site’s language, matching what you will actually touch.	Drafted with the site’s research office; signed as the site requires.
Revision response	Point by point, tied to the revised page.	The same, on the site’s return.	Drafted and sent by us; the revised documents re-filed on both boards where they changed.
Amendments and continuing review	When the project changes, and for as long as it runs.	On whichever board asks.	Handled by us under Full Handover, on both boards.

Whether a particular form is required, optional or replaced by a portal field is Chamberlain’s current handbook or IRB portal’s call, and the site board’s for its own packet. We read both before a page is drafted.

Both truths

Two things never move, whatever the package and whatever the board.

The project stays yours

The study, the data and the findings are yours. We do not conduct the research, collect the data or author the findings.
You sign what only you can sign: the portal submission under your account, the attestations, the consent of your own role. We prepare every line of it.
You are copied on every reply to either board, and nothing goes to a board that you have not seen.

The boards’ decisions are their own

No consultant can promise an approval, and we don’t. Each board reads the file with its own people and its own liability in view.
A determination binds the board that wrote it and no one else; Chamberlain’s QI determination does not travel to the site, and a site approval is not a pass at Chamberlain.
What we promise is the file: complete, consistent across both boards, answered the way coordinators read, and carried until both approvals are in writing.

When either board returns the file

Returned, not rejected. A board that sends a file back lists what it wants changed, and the answer is a document of its own. Under Full Handover we draft and send it, and every reply after it, on whichever board asked.

The revision response

Every point the board raised, quoted; every point answered; every answer tied to the page that changed. Where a requested change would break the story across the other board’s file, both files are revised together, and the other board is told in the form it expects. Each return waits out another pass of that board’s calendar, which is why the first filing is built to land.

Amendments

A site added, a measure renamed, a sample widened, an instrument swapped: any change to an approved project goes back to the board that approved it, in its amendment form, before the change is acted on. Where the change touches both files, it is filed on both boards, version-matched.

Continuing review

Some boards ask for a status report at intervals they set; some close the file at approval. Whatever either board asks, for as long as the project runs, is answered from the same desk that filed the original. You are never corresponding with a board alone.

Run the two-board checker

Five questions. It tells you how many boards stand between you and data collection, and it will say so plainly when the answer is one and you can file it yourself.

question 1 of 5

The checker asks five questions and reads them into one of three verdicts: one board only, file it yourself; two boards, open the site’s track first; or the site’s board can read this as research, bring it to the review.

Where does your practicum sit? A large hospital or health system, a community clinic or private practice, a school district or public agency, long-term care, or your own workplace.
Does the site keep a research council or an IRB of record?
Do you know that board’s submission calendar?
What will the project touch: identifiable patient data, patients directly, or staff and process data only?
Is the file framed as quality improvement all the way through?

Where to next

Start with the free application review.

Bring the project as it stands; a paragraph and a site name is enough. You get a written read against both tracks: what each board will want, what is missing, and which door to knock on first.

Book the free application review

No obligation. If one board is all you need, that is what the review will say.