Abstract
External advisory committees (EACs) are critical peer-review meetings that drive improvement at Clinical and Translational Science Award Program Hubs. Despite their ubiquity, evaluations of EAC optimization and effective implementation remain scarce. We present a two-tiered approach to optimizing EAC meetings through (1) in-depth, topically focused "pre-review" meetings comprised of external topic experts and at least one standing "full-board" EAC member, followed by (2) a traditional "full-board" EAC meeting. This approach allowed pre-review discussion of program-focused topics and specific recommendations, later delivered to the full-board for review and direction. To evaluate this approach, we interviewed 18 people who planned, administered, or attended pre-review and/or full-board meetings, including internal Hub staff, external topic experts, and standing EAC members. Thematic analysis was used to explore planning, implementation, and value of our two-tiered approach versus the traditional single full-board approach. Interviewees preferred the two-tiered approach, noting benefits including additional time to reflect, shared identification of strengths and challenges, and discussion of solutions to share later with the full-board. Those who attended pre-review meetings described building "transformational," rather than "transactional," relationships with invitees through more discussion and inter-hub sharing. That increased sharing invited more exploration, discussion, and planning of next steps toward innovation.