- Home
- Testimonials
Two approvals, in their words.
From professionals whose projects now have a start date. Names are shortened to first name, initial and credential at their request; the stars are the ones they gave.
Ten accounts, one pattern. Almost every one begins with a board discovered late, the practicum site’s, and ends with two approvals in writing and a start date that held. In between is the part the practice does: the reading that names which board to open first, the two files made to tell one story, and the replies to either board carried until both said yes. One account ends with the review saying one board was enough, and a file she carried herself.
- IRB application files prepared2,600+
- preparing Chamberlain files since2012
- average rating from the professionals we’ve served4.9 / 5
- files readevery week
Ten accounts
Read them for the turn in each one: the question that reordered the plan, the document that both boards read differently, the reply that closed the file.
I had Chamberlain’s determination in hand and thought I was done. The practice asked one question about my hospital’s nursing-research council and reorganised the whole plan around its calendar. The site approved on its first reading, and my data collection started on the date we had written down.
My project was QI to Chamberlain and research to my health system, and nobody had told me that was possible. They rebuilt the consent sheet and the data-security plan so both boards read the same story, and both approvals came back in writing.
The site board had already returned my application once before I found them. They drafted the revision response, fixed the instruments, and handled every reply after that. I never corresponded with the board again; I just received the approval.
Two boards, one file, and I only ever spoke with Rebecca. The free review told me exactly which door to knock on first, and it was the one I would have left for last.
My clinic has no IRB, so I assumed I had one board. The review said: ask the network’s research office, in writing, before you count on the short path. The answer was a review committee I had never heard of, with a meeting calendar nowhere near where my plan had assumed it would be. Noelle had the packet on its agenda before I had finished the Chamberlain application.
My consent sheet said research in three places inside a file that argued quality improvement. Abigail found all three before either board did, rewrote the sheet once, and put the same version in both packets. Neither board asked the question I had been dreading.
Full Handover meant exactly that. My CITI modules were the wrong set for what the site wanted; they caught it, told me which to complete, and filed the certificates in both packets. From there I signed what only I could sign and read the copies. Both approvals arrived in writing and I had not written a single email to a board.
Approval was not the end of it. We added a second unit mid-project, and the site board wanted an amendment while Chamberlain wanted a note in the file. They filed both, version-matched, and handled the site’s continuing review later in the year. I had stopped thinking about the boards by then, which I gather was the point.
The honest one: the free review told me I had one board and could file it myself. Staff and process data, clean QI frame, no site council. I bought Determination & Plan for the written reading and the document list, filed the Chamberlain application on my own, and got the determination. They could have sold me more and didn’t.
The site’s board had sent my file back twice before I found the practice, and the second letter was shorter than the first, which frightened me more. Noelle’s revision response quoted every point, answered it, and pointed to the page that changed. Approved on the next reading. I keep the letter.
The common thread
Read across the ten and the same three turns appear, which is why the practice works every file the same way.
The site board found late
Danielle, Elena and Whitney each discovered the second board after the plan was built. The free review asks that question first, in writing, because the site’s calendar reorders everything else. How it works shows why the site’s track opens first.
Two files, one story
Caroline and Jordan had files that read differently on each board. The fix was never two stories; it was one consent sheet and one data-security plan, written to the stricter read and identical in both packets.
The correspondence carried
Luis, Monique, Tamika and Stephen stopped writing to boards. Under Full Handover every reply, from the revision response to continuing review, goes out from the practice; what it costs explains how the three packages divide that line.
And sometimes, one board
Rachel’s review said she could file it herself, and she did. The two-board checker on the homepage reaches the same honest verdict when the answers warrant it.
Where to next
- The yard crewRebecca, Abigail and Noelle, and which desk carries what.
- What it costsThree packages, quoted in writing after the free review.
- Signals, answeredFifteen questions from the application desk, answer first.
- Book the free application reviewBring the project as it stands; a paragraph and a site name is enough.
Your start date, in writing.
The free application review reads your project against both tracks and tells you which door to knock on first. Then we carry the whole process, both boards, every document, every reply, until both approvals are in writing.
No obligation. If one board is all you need, that is what the review will say.