One email when something in the process changes.

The archive: filed notes

The longer pieces the filing note points to — one pocket of the folder worked through from the form to the board's reply — filed here newest first, each one saying what to verify against Herzing's current IRB handbook or portal.

• You do not claim QI at Herzing — you file for a determination

  A Herzing capstone or DNP practice project does not exempt itself by being called quality improvement — both of Herzing's IRB applications exist so the board can determine whether the design meets the Common Rule definitions of research and human subjects, and the form you are routed to decides which determination you are filing for.

  2026-08-23
• How long Herzing IRB approval takes, answered in gates and passes

  No one outside the board can tell you how long approval takes, and anyone who does is guessing — but the sequence of gates a Herzing folder passes through is published and precise, and the only part of it anyone controls is how many passes the folder asks the board to make.

  2026-08-23
• Surveying the staff you work beside: consent, coercion and what anonymity really costs

  Surveying the people you work beside is the most common Herzing design and the one most often returned, because the risk is rarely the questions themselves — it is whether a colleague could believe that declining would be noticed, and whether the file can tell anonymity apart from confidentiality.

  2026-08-23
• Site permission for a Herzing IRB folder: whose signature, what the letter must name, and why it arrives last

  Herzing's IRB applications name a Location/Sponsor, a Program Chair letter and any external board's approval, but publish no site permission template — so the letter has to carry its own authority: official letterhead, a signatory with real control over access, your project named as the application names it, and each permitted activity spelled out.

  2026-08-23
• Answering Herzing IRB revisions so the next pass is the last one

  Build the reply as a numbered ledger the reviewer can tick: each note quoted, the change written as a fact rather than an intention, the exact document and form answer where it now sits, and every other paper carrying that fact swept and refiled in the same envelope.

  2026-08-23
• Not human subjects, exempt, expedited, full board: what actually sorts a Herzing file

  A Herzing file lands on one of four levels — not human-subjects research, an exempt category, expedited review, or the convened board — and the IRB Chair assigns it from facts about the design: what is recorded, whether anyone could be identified, what disclosure would cost them, who sits in the population, and whether the participants are Herzing's own people.

  2026-08-23
• Recruitment materials for a Herzing IRB folder: the flyer, the email and the script, filed word for word

  Herzing's Research Protocol Application gives recruitment a single description box, but a description is not an approvable artefact — the flyer, the email, the huddle script and the reminder all get filed in the words participants will actually meet, because equitable selection and the opening of the consent conversation are both judged from those words.

  2026-08-23
• Nine moves, in the order a Herzing IRB file actually makes them

  A Herzing IRB file moves in a fixed order — the application your programme is routed to, the checklist on its first page, the signatures, the send to the IRB Chair ahead of a dated meeting, the Chair's triage into exempt, expedited or full board, the vote, the written notice, and the obligations that survive approval.

  2026-08-23
• Running your Herzing project where you work: dual roles and the board's questions

  A project run inside your own workplace is ordinary and answerable, provided the folder separates the roles you hold, keeps the invitation away from anyone with authority over the people invited, and says in writing what your second hat is and what it does not decide.

  2026-08-23
• Changing an approved Herzing project: what has to be approved before it happens

  An approval covers the project as it was described, so a change waits for written approval before it is put into practice — the sole exception being a step taken to remove an immediate hazard, which is done first and reported at once.

  2026-08-23
• Interviews and focus groups: the guide, the recording, and the confidentiality no one can promise

  An interview guide is an instrument and gets read like one, a recording is identifiable data in its own right rather than a step toward a transcript, and a focus group can only promise what the researcher controls — which is why the consent form has to state the limits of confidentiality instead of guaranteeing it.

  2026-08-23
• When a hospital or employer board reviews alongside Herzing, and which one goes first

  When a hospital or employer has its own review body, both boards decide for their own institution and neither decides for the other — and because Herzing's checklists ask you to attach the external application and its approval letter, the outside board is usually the one to start first.

  2026-08-23
• Existing records and secondary data: the moment a dataset becomes human subjects

  Records that already exist become human-subjects research the moment whoever analyses them could tie a row back to a person, and Herzing's board makes that call rather than the project — so the records pocket has to say who holds the key, what leaves the source, and when the identifiers are destroyed.

  2026-08-23
• The data security plan on a Herzing IRB application: storage, access, de-identification and disposition

  Herzing asks the same data security question on both of its IRB applications — where physical and electronic data will live, how that location or system is secured, how long it is kept and how old data is destroyed — and the answers have to agree with the consent paragraph, the personnel roster and the three-year undertaking you sign further down the form.

  2026-08-23
• After the Herzing IRB approval: what to report, what is reviewed again, how it closes

  Approval opens an oversight period with three standing duties — report the unexpected at once, keep the file matching the work, and come back before the approval period ends — and it finishes with a deliberate close, a final deliverable and records held for the retention period.

  2026-08-23
• Consent documents for a Herzing IRB application: required elements, reading level, and the version that has to match

  Herzing's Research Protocol Application asks you to attach every informed consent document a participant will receive plus a separate account of confidentiality and anonymity, but publishes no template — so the elements come from 45 CFR 46.116, the plainness from 46.116(a), the signature rules from 46.117, and the version discipline from you.

  2026-08-23
• Complete before good: the reading that happens before the board reads your project

  Both Herzing IRB applications print a checklist on page one, ahead of the first question, and both promise a written notice that either lets the project commence or asks for more — which means completeness is settled before quality, and a file missing an attachment spends its whole place on the agenda establishing only that it was missing an attachment.

  2026-08-23
• Reading a returned Herzing IRB letter: what each note is actually asking for

  A return names the conditions the board needs met before it can approve. Sort the notes into the four kinds — a document absent, two papers disagreeing, a protection left thin, a category queried — settle the category note first, and close each one in the place it was raised.

  2026-08-23
• Where a Herzing IRB file has to agree with itself, document by document

  A Herzing IRB submission is read as a single document rather than a stack, so the same facts — title, population, dates, storage, retention, personnel, instrument wording, recruitment route and compensation — have to repeat identically wherever they appear, and every paraphrase becomes a discrepancy a reviewer has to stop and reconcile.

  2026-08-23
• CITI training for a Herzing IRB filing: which course, whose certificate, and what a lapsed one costs

  Both Herzing IRB applications carry the same one-line requirement — attach a copy of your CITI certification, free to Herzing affiliates through Canvas — but the line says nothing about which track, how current, or who besides you needs one, so those answers come from CITI's own structure, from the personnel you named in Methodology, and from Herzing's current IRB material.

  2026-08-23