Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions

Abstract

IACUCs serve a critical role in animal care and use programs, ensuring that institutions which use animals in research and teaching do so responsibly and humanely. This role is defined in part by federal regulations, policies, and guidelines that prescribe the establishment and function of these committees. Often, IACUC administrators are expected to evaluate IACUC performance to ensure that committees execute these functions effectively, and in a manner that is suitable to the institution. However, methods for IACUC performance evaluation have not been well described in the peer-reviewed literature. To address this deficit, we conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE to identify methods that have been used to assess IACUCs. The scope of this review was intentionally broad to capture evaluation methods used by other institutional committees with similar responsibilities in overseeing research conduct, including animal ethics committees (AECs), institutional biosafety committees (IBCs), and institutional review boards (IRBs). Over 100 publications that included empirical evaluation methods were identified, although only 17 evaluated IACUCs in the United States. A substantial number of the studies used qualitative methods, such as surveys or questionnaires, interviews, and observations. The IACUC functions and characteristics most often assessed in the 17 publications included components of the protocol review processes and committee membership. We compiled this information to offer IACUC administrators a source of methodologies that can be incorporated into quality improvement and IACUC performance evaluation efforts. We also suggest ways in which organizations may evaluate IACUCs using methods described in the literature for other types of committees.

Institutions that use animals in research and teaching rely on IACUCs to promote animal welfare standards and to ensure compliance with applicable federal regulations, policies, and guidelines. In the United States, IACUCs are typically assigned at least 4 core functions: inspecting animal facilities and animal use areas; reviewing the institution's program for animal care and use; investigating concerns involving the care and use of animals; and reviewing animal use proposals.²⁹ Regulations and policies also describe minimal expectations for the composition of an IACUC, the training of its members, and the timely and accurate communication with an institutional official.^2,29,57 Although IACUCs uniformly accept these functions and responsibilities, committees and administrators have considerable flexibility regarding the processes and policies they adopt. Within this milieu of regulations, policies, and performance standards, there exists substantial need and opportunity for assessing and improving IACUC function. Use of performance data can help ensure IACUCs accomplish required functions and responsibilities as intended.

The thoughtful application of performance evaluation methods serves as an effective means of monitoring outcomes and tracking goals.^10,54,56 In addition to monitoring the routine functions of an IACUC, performance metrics can also help objectively identify trends or changes in outcomes. This information may prompt a committee to reassess their standard approach, and thus lead to programmatic review and potential improvement. Metrics are also useful in assessing the success or failure of an intervention such as implementing a significant policy change or redirecting programmatic resources to a new focus. Such changes are likely to become more common, as IACUCs are increasingly pressured to minimize institutionally imposed administrative burden on researchers.^22,26,36

Despite the benefits of incorporating performance metrics into IACUC evaluation strategies, this subject has not been adequately addressed in the peer-reviewed literature. Without established procedures to guide administrators, evaluating IACUC performance and prioritizing quality improvement (QI) may be perceived as overly burdensome. Certainly, such an undertaking requires a significant time investment, and this process may not be accounted for in the time budgets of IACUC administrators and members. Further complicating the issue, differing expectations of IACUC performance are often held among different stakeholders in the institution (for example, the institutional official, Attending Veterinarian, researchers, compliance offices) and by external groups (for example, USDA, OLAW, the general public). These issues support the use of efficient and methodical approaches for assessment of IACUC performance.

The goal of this review is to present IACUCs and their administrators with empirical methods shown to be effective in evaluating IACUCs or other committees that have similar institutional responsibilities. Although the literature contains gaps specific to IACUCs, we identified relevant evaluation methods for committees with similar oversight functions, such as IRBs, which review and approve human research projects, and IBCs, which review and oversee research using recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules.³⁵

Materials and Methods

We conducted a preliminary literature search using the MEDLINE (US National Library of Medicine or NLM) database, Epub ahead of print, in-process, and other nonindexed citations through February 05, 2020. A combination of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms were used, including ethics committee, research; institutional biosafety committee; animal care committee; IACUC or institutional animal care and use; IRB or institutional review board; and additional subheadings like metric, quality, evaluate, perform, improve, assess and adhere. The search criteria were chosen with the objective of capturing a broad scope of studies describing performance metrics that may apply to IACUCs, even if the studies were not specifically focused on IACUCs. The list was modified to exclude personal experiences, anecdotes, and commentary or expert opinion pieces, such that our analysis focused on empirical studies describing methods that could be used by IACUC members or administrators to collect data on performance metrics. The list was then expanded by screening bibliographies and searching for additional relevant articles by the first authors of the articles that empirically assessed IACUCs or animal ethics committees (AECs).

The final list contained 105 English language publications that met our inclusion criteria of describing qualitative methods, quantitative methods, or both. Of these, only 17 (16%) described empirical studies that assessed IACUC functions in the United States. These 17 publications are summarized in Table 1. We evaluated all 105 publications and noted methods and metrics that could be used by IACUCs and IACUC administrators for QI strategies. A selection of these are presented within the framework of essential IACUC functions in Table 2.

Table 1.

Studies evaluating IACUCs.

Author(s) / year	Objectives	Methods	Results	Conclusions
Borkowski G., and colleagues 19977	Examine diversity of IACUC practices and procedures among multiple institutions.	Survey of 477 IACUC chairs with questions divided into 6 topics. Feedback was solicited through multiple-choice, short-answer, and fill-in-the-blank response options.	Most reported similar methods for assuring animal welfare. Several areas for improvement were identified.	IACUCs are a valid method for the provision of humane care and use of animals in research, education, or testing. Improvements will occur as IACUCs gain experience and maturity.
Dresser R. 198913	Examine IACUC protocol review process.	Controlled study in which 32 IACUCs reviewed hypothetical protocols, submitted comments, and reviewed the protocol form for analysis.	Committees generally agreed on refinements needed to minimize pain and distress to animals. IACUCs had less consensus in assessing the justification for laboratory animal use.	The responsibility of IACUCs to review animal use protocols presents major conceptual and practical difficulties.
Dresser R. 199014*	Offer IACUCs detailed description of committee comments and protocol review forms collected during study examining IACUC protocol review process.	Supplemental information from controlled study as described in Dresser R., 1989.	Additional study data is summarized with more detailed description of the committees’ comments.	Studying protocol review processes over time is one way to measure the ongoing development of ethical standards for animal research.
Galvin S.L. and Herzog H.A. 199217	Examine ethical decision-making using the IACUC protocol review process.	Controlled study in which 160 undergraduate students reviewed 5 hypothetical protocols, then completed a questionnaire.	Differences in gender and moral philosophy were associated with type of approval decision.	The use of hypothetical research proposals elucidates a broad range of factors relevant to judging ethical dilemmas involved in the use of animals in research.
Graham K. 200218	Examine perceptions of scientific merit and the use of alternatives during the IACUC protocol review process.	Survey of 21 members among 3 IACUCs at one institution, followed by interviews with 13 of the members surveyed.	Majority of IACUC members were in favor of greater scrutiny of scientific merit and alternative searches when painful procedures on animals are proposed.	IACUC members agreed that IACUCs help to improve animal welfare, although clarification from regulators could further improve the welfare of laboratory animals.
Ingham K.M., and colleagues 200028	Describe a survey tool to examine PI perception of IACUC and to guide QI initiatives.	Interviews of IACUC members and a representative sample of PIs. Survey 128 animal users on issues raised during interviews.	Trends from survey data were used by the IACUC to direct interventions intended to improve compliance.	Surveying the animal user population is an excellent way to determining user satisfaction and assess the effectiveness of IACUC oversight.
Ingham, K.M. 200327*	Describe resurvey tool to examine PI perception of IACUC 4 y after implementation of QI initiatives.	Follow-on study to Ingham K.M. and colleagues 2000. Re-interview of IACUC members and a representative sample of PIs. Resurvey of 205 animal users, based on interview responses.	Investigators’ perceptions improved 5% to 51% in all 6 areas of interventions included in the survey.	The survey-resurvey tool was useful in assessing investigator perceptions of IACUC job performance and the impact of targeted improvements.
Mann M.D. and Prentice E.D. 200731	Examine the impact on IACUCs of PHS Policy requiring review of grant-protocol congruency and guidelines for just-in-time review process.	Survey of 168 IACUCs, supplemented with the collection of QI data on grant-protocol congruency reviews from the author's IACUC.	30% of respondents did not conduct grant-protocol reviews, while respondents that did reported a time investment of 20–29 min per review. Most respondents use the just-in-time process whenever possible.	There is considerable uncertainty among IACUCs regarding both grant-protocol congruency reviews and the just-in-time process promulgated under PHS Policy.
McEntee H.I. and Sandgren E.P. 200732	Describe QI methods to create and implement a worksheet tool for IACUC semiannual program review.	Informal interviews of IACUC members to solicit feedback, and monitor duration and quality of program review using the worksheet.	Each IACUC could complete its program review within a single meeting after 3 iterations of using the worksheet. Summary reports were distributed widely to improve communication.	IACUCs face challenges in facilitating thorough reviews of each component over time and within the scope of the overall program. The worksheet format encourages acknowledgment of a program's strengths and successes.
Norton J.N., and colleagues 201736	Examine animal user perception of IACUC-imposed burden to guide QI initiatives.	Survey of 520 individuals on program satisfaction, burden imposed by IACUC processes, and process modifications.	Participants were satisfied with their IACUC administrative office and animal resource unit. Several IACUC processes were considered burdensome and proposals for modification were favored, but responses varied between researchers and veterinarians surveyed.	Minimizing unnecessary, self-imposed burden in the animal program is particularly important to ensure costs, time, and effort are appropriate to achieve animal welfare and quality of research endeavors.
Plous S. and Herzog H. 200139	Examine consistency among IACUCs and members during protocol review.	Controlled study in which 50 IACUCs each reviewed 3 masked protocols previously reviewed by another IACUC. Individuals and full committees completed questionnaires.	Low consistency was observed between the decisions of the second committee and the original committee reviewing each protocol. Low consistency was also observed between members of the same IACUC.	IACUC protocol recommendations exhibit low interrater agreement. If the IACUC protocol review process is to remain a credible and effective component in the regulation of animal research, techniques to improve reviewer reliability are needed.
Silverman J., and colleagues 2012 (Part 1)48	Examine IACUC member perceptions of IACUC functions and effectiveness.	Survey of 1,007 IACUC members and administrators on characteristics of IACUC function and effectiveness.	Most respondents believe IACUCs advance animal welfare, but a smaller majority of veterinarians agree. Several areas for improvement were identified.	IACUC members felt their committees generally promote the welfare of laboratory animals and comply with applicable federal regulations. Veterinary members tended to rate IACUC effectiveness more negatively.
Silverman J., and colleagues 2012 (Part 2)49*	Examine IACUC member and administrator perceptions of IACUC functions and effectiveness.	Survey described in Silverman J., and colleagues 2012 (Part 1). Explored additional findings with a focus on IACUC structure and organization.	IACUC administrators offered opinions that differed from those of IACUC members. Most respondents favored existing committee structures and functions and believed protocol reviews were generally fair and unbiased.	Non-IACUC members tended to rate IACUC effectiveness more negatively.
Silverman J., and colleagues 201551	Examine the IACUC full committee protocol review process.	Record and transcribe 87 protocol reviews by full committee across 10 academic institutions.	Most frequently discussed concepts included pain and distress, specific procedures performed, study design, and completeness of the protocol form. Not all topics required for IACUC consideration were openly discussed during all reviews.	Full committee reviews are more valuable when each of the mandated topics are addressed during discussions, even if briefly.
Silverman J., and colleagues 201750*	Examine participation among IACUC members during full committee protocol review process.	Methods described in Silverman J., and col-leagues 2015, plus an analysis of IACUC members making each comment during full committee review.	As a group, scientist members presented the largest number of protocols and made the most topic mentions. Community members made the fewest topic mentions. On an individual basis, chairs and veterinarians commented the most.	Scientist members on an IACUC may significantly influence IACUC decision making. IACUCs should consider whether a reduced number of scientists could provide adequate representation while leading to an increase in the number of other voting members.
Tsan M.F., and colleagues 201654	Identify trends in the IACUC continuing review process during QI evaluation.	Use of a web-based audit tool to analyze IACUC continuing review reports from 74-75 Veterans Affairs (VA) research facilities.	The continuing review lapse rates improved from 5.6% in 2011 to 2.7% in 2015. The rate of investigators continuing research activities during the lapse also decreased from 47.2% in 2012 to 7.4% in 2015. No effect seen on type of IACUC or the size of animal research programs.	Performance data collected annually from VA research facilities help individual facilities compare performance with VA national and network averages. Future studies are needed to identify strategies for preventing or improving lapse in IACUC continuing reviews.
Vanderford D.A., and colleagues 201559	Examine trends and overall impact of a PAM program during QI evaluation.	Analysis of compliance records during the first 10 y of a PAM program. Noncompliance found during PAM were compared with self-reported noncompliance.	Compliance with the animal care and use program increased since the inception of the PAM program.	PAM records and trends in noncompliance incidents guide efforts to improve compliance through new initiatives and future directions.

^* Indicates follow-on study.

Table 2.

Example metrics and assessments to evaluate common IACUC functions

IACUC function	Function component	Metric	Assessment	Committee type evaluated	Reference
Protocol Review	Participation	Member participation during protocol reviews	Incidence or frequency of feedback by individual or member category (chair, scientist, nonscientist, veterinarian, nonaffiliated)	IRB	Candilis, P.J., and colleagues 20129
				IACUC	Silverman J., and colleagues 201551
		Quality of member participation during protocol reviews	Transcribe and code discussion topics presented during review	IACUC	Houde L., and colleagues 200323
				IACUC	Silverman J., and colleagues 201551
			Audit protocol review comments based on protocol form sections	IACUC	Dresser R. 198913
	Process	IACUC member satisfaction with review process	Survey or interview IACUC members	IACUC	Silverman J., and colleagues 201248
		Researcher satisfaction with review process	Survey researchers	IACUC	Norton J.N., and colleagues 201736
			Days under each phase/type of review process	IRB	Varley P.R., and colleagues 201660
		IACUC member views on the committee's ethical framework	Survey IACUC members	IACUC	Houde L., and colleagues 200924
	Duration	Factors affecting duration of protocol review process	Study characteristics impacting review time	IRB	Caligiuri M., and colleagues 20178
			Impact of regulatory support personnel on review time	IRB	Desai, P., and colleagues 201712
			Time to approve based on funding source, procedure invasiveness	IRB	Hall D.E., and colleagues 201520
	Outcomes	Protocol review outcomes	Protocol review outcomes, type of protocols, category of invasiveness	IACUC	Houde L., and colleagues 200323
			Frequency of protocols approved without revisions, protocols requiring revisions, protocols rejected	IRB	Abdel-Aal, W. and colleagues 20134
	Volume	Number of protocols reviewed	Total number of protocols reviewed per meeting, per year	AEC	Schuppli C.A. and Fraser D. 200746
		Reviewer workload	Frequency each member or member category is assigned designated or primary reviewer	AEC	Schuppli C.A. and Fraser D. 200746
	Concurrent Factors	Protocol review time occupied with ancillary review	Incidence and duration reviews are held for ancillary purposes (for example, radiation safety review, biosafety review, scientific review)	IRB	Caligiuri M., and colleagues 20178
	Continuing Reviews	Lapse in performing continuing reviews	Incidence or frequency of completed continuing reviews compared with lapses in continuing reviews	IACUC	Tsan M.F., and colleagues 201654
		Workload associated with continuing review	% protocols undergoing continuing review/year	IRB	VandenBosch T.M and Maio T.M. 201158
		Outcomes of continuing reviews	Incidence and frequency of noncompliance findings during routine continuing review	IACUC	Vanderford D.A., and colleagues 201559
Semiannual Inspections	Inspection Process	IACUC member satisfaction with inspection process	Survey or interview IACUC members	IACUC	Borkowski G., and colleagues 19977
		Researcher satisfaction with program oversight	Survey animal-user population	IACUC	Norton J.N., and colleagues 201736
Program Review	Program Review Process	IACUC member satisfaction with program oversight	Survey or interview IACUC members	IACUC	Borkowski G., and colleagues 19977
			Solicit feedback from core campus services	IACUC	McEntee H.I. and Sandgren E.P. 200732
	Training Process	IACUC member satisfaction with continuing education	Survey IACUC members	IRB	Feldman J.A. and Rebholz C.M. 200916
		Researcher compliance with training expectations	Number of personnel without initial training, lapse in continuing training	IRB	Tsan M.F., and colleagues 201355
		Researcher satisfaction of training programs	Survey animal use population	IACUC	Ingham K.M., and colleagues 200028
	Outcomes	Deficiencies	Number of policies and procedural issues discussed	IBC	Dutton D.B. and Hochheimer J.L. 198215
	Regulatory Burden	Perception of burden among IACUC processes	Survey animal-user population	IACUC	Norton J.N., and colleagues 201736
Investigate Concerns	Methods to report concerns	Methods in place to report concerns	Survey IACUC members	IACUC	Borkowski G., and colleagues 19977
	Investigation Process	Volume	Number and reason for protocol suspensions/terminations	IRB	Tsan M.F., and colleagues 201355
	IACUC Administration	Personnel workload	Number of protocols per IACUC Administrator FTE	IRB	Caligiuri M., and colleagues 20178
Quality Improvement	Success of Interventions	Researcher perception of interventions made by IACUC	Resurvey animal-user population	IACUC	Ingham, K.M. 200327

While some assessment tools listed here have been used in studies directly evaluating IACUC functions, additional tools which have been used to evaluate similar functions of IRBs and IBCs are also included.

Results

Our literature search identified 17 publications analyzing functions or aspects of IACUC responsibilities using empirical data, with the first publication appearing in 1989. We summarized each of these publications in Table 1. Four (24%) of these publications were characterized as either a follow-up study, supplemental discussion, or an expanded analysis of a previous publication.^14,27,49,50 In the latter situation, both the original and the follow-up or associated studies were included in Table 1. Taking these into account, the literature search identified 13 primary empirical studies that analyzed functions or features of IACUCs in the United States.

The scope of these studies ranged from one IACUC at a single institution,^{27,28,32,36,59} to surveys completed by more than 1,000 individuals, likely representing hundreds of IACUCs.^48,49 One study included nearly all aspects of IACUC function and their characteristics,⁷ but most studies focused on a more limited range.

Often studies used a blend of qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative methods were used to develop surveys, conduct interviews, and observe or record committee meetings. Such methods are preferred when describing and explaining individuals’ experiences, behaviors, interactions, and social contexts.⁴² In contrast, quantitative methods are used to study components of IACUC function involving frequency and other objective data. Quantitative methods are often used in both the assessment of qualitative data, as seen in the analysis of participant responses to surveys and interviews, and in the categorization of observational data. Methods used in IACUC studies included surveys or questionnaires (the most prevalent method), followed in decreasing order of use by the collection of quantitative data, interviews, and finally, by observations and recordings (Table 1). The use of qualitative methods to assess IACUCs seemed consistent with an overall general trend: 72 (68.5%) of the 105 publications in our final list included data collected from surveys, questionnaires, interviews, or focus groups.

Collection of quantitative data was most often associated with IACUC studies performed as part of a QI effort.^31,32,54,59 These included time invested in reviewing grant proposals,³¹ the lapse rate of continuing reviews (that is, the number of protocols that did not receive a continuing review, compared with the total number of protocols, within a 1-year period),⁵⁴ and the frequency of noncompliant incidents before and after the implementation of a post approval monitoring (PAM) initiative.⁵⁹ Three studies described the use of a controlled study design in which IACUCs or another group (for example, students) were asked to review the use of animals in hypothetical or masked protocols.^13,17,39 One manuscript provided supplemental data from the original study in a subsequent publication.¹⁴ Qualitative methods such as surveys, questionnaires, and interviews were used in 15 of the 17 IACUC publications listed. Six publications indicated that data was collected as part of an identified QI effort to evaluate IACUCs at the institutional level, while the remaining publications discussed their findings within a broader context of IACUCs in general.

We evaluated the methods described in all 105 empirical publications, with the goal of identifying metrics and assessment methods that IACUCs can successfully incorporate into their QI toolkits. In addition to the methods used in the 17 IACUC specific papers, we also studied methods used to assess other committees involved in research oversight in the remaining publications from our literature search. A selection of methods from both IACUC and non-IACUC studies that were considered relevant to assessing IACUC functions are presented in Table 2.

Publications that assessed IRBs, or Research Ethics Committees (RECs) as they are sometimes called outside of the United States,⁵² dominated our literature findings. Seventy-six (72%) publications evaluated various aspects of committees responsible for evaluating research involving human subjects. Collectively, these studies evaluated a diverse array of IRB characteristics including composition, training, structure, and outcomes. These analyses were performed using qualitative, quantitative and mixed methodologies, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, site visits, analysis of meeting discussions and minutes, and defined performance metrics (for example, frequency of reviews by type or project features, review durations and outcomes, level of support staff, training compliance). Our observations were consistent with similar systematic reviews of IRBs.³

Outside of the United States, committees responsible for reviewing animal research may be referred to as AECs. These committees are often charged with similar responsibilities and functions as IACUCs. One research team interviewed AEC members across 4 universities in Canada to gain insight on how these members understand and apply the 3 Rs,⁴⁵ and on factors that may influence committee effectiveness.⁴⁶ Similarly, another group interviewed AEC members in Sweden to explore how individual views on ethics are manifested during committee discussions and influence committee decisions.²⁵ Other publications did not assess any committees directly, but nonetheless used methods and data that could be applied to IACUCs. One study described the views of animal researchers interviewed about the use of analgesics in laboratory animals.³⁸ Another characterized current practices for monitoring and recognizing pain and distress in laboratory animals through interviews with researchers, veterinarians, and animal technicians across 28 institutions in the United Kingdom.²¹ Another group described an action-research approach to optimize services provided to researchers by the veterinary operations team at their institution.³⁷ The literature search identified only 2 publications that assessed IBCs. One described a scoring system for the assessment of meeting minutes from registered IBCs.⁴¹ The other presented data from a survey of IBC members in California on aspects of committee composition and the process for review of biosafety proposals.¹⁵

Discussion

IACUCs are an essential feature of the institutional research landscape. In the United States, IACUCs are responsible for a critical set of functions outlined in the Animal Welfare Act and its Regulations,^1,2 the Public Health Service's Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals,⁵⁷ and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.²⁹ However, considerable latitude is bestowed on individual committees when carrying out these functions and overseeing the humane care and use of laboratory animals. This kind of latitude is necessary to flexible self-regulation that allows for the development of appropriate systems for diverse institutions with varied interests, goals, cultures, and resources. However, despite the regulatory mandate for IACUCs, little empirical, published information is available concerning the evaluation of their function. In the current study, we identified publications in the literature that include methods of evaluation that may be helpful to IACUC administrators. These individuals may be expected to institute QI initiatives for their committees and develop empirical studies without published guidelines.

The value of routinely collecting data to evaluate IACUC performance will continue to grow as trends and patterns emerge. Such data can be used to educate committee members, researchers, institutional leadership, and the public on IACUC function and effectiveness, which may in turn improve communication and engagement among these groups. Administrators that do not use performance metrics may lack a thorough understanding of how well their IACUC performs its responsibilities between mandatory inspections and triennial accreditation visits. Opportunities to improve efficiency and public perception of IACUC functions by the research community by using data from evaluation tools can assist with establishing problem statements and desired outcomes for QI efforts. The use of performance metrics to track and assess goals for IACUC performance can also reveal areas that need attention and suggest novel approaches to remediating deficits in IACUC performance.⁴⁰ With the growing availability of data management resources and increased attention on metrics, the IACUC evaluation process can be an enlightening undertaking.⁴⁰

Relatively few published studies have specifically described the use of evaluation tools for the assessment of IACUC functions, although the authors are aware of many institutionally based studies that have been presented as abstracts at various professional meetings. The analogous assessment of institutional committees responsible for the oversight of research involving human subjects has garnered much attention in the literature. Several of the methods used to assess IRBs that were identified in the current literature search could successfully be implemented for IACUCs. For example, we were unable to identify in the present literature search studies that evaluated issues affecting the duration of the protocol review process among IACUCs. However, multiple factors and their impact on the duration of protocol review for IRBs have been explored.^8,12,20 As researchers frequently express concerns regarding the timeliness of animal use protocol review and approval,^22,33,36,53 metrics to evaluate the duration of protocol review and factors that may impact turnaround time would be relevant to IACUCs. As such, studies that have empirically assessed IRBs may be particularly relevant to IACUC administrators. Some of these studies are referenced in Table 2.

Several publications evaluating IRBs described the use of self-assessment tools with defined metrics for a variety of committee features.^{5,19,43,44,47,52} These tools defined goals and performance measures for assessment, and often included a combination of qualitative and quantitative strategies to effectively measure QI and to facilitate accurate comparisons between committees and institutions. The development of these tools can be attributed to the number of studies evaluating IRBs in the literature.^5,43 If self-assessment tools established for IRBs were modified to address IACUC functions, or if similar applications were created with IACUCs in mind, this could make developing, recording and evaluating performance metrics more useful for IACUC administrators.

In summary, the literature search we conducted demonstrates the lack of emphasis on evaluating IACUC performance as compared with the emphasis on IRB performance. Indeed, entire books have been written that critically examine IRB functioning and purpose,³⁰ whereas no such books dedicated to the same topic for IACUCs exist; the only books available focus on IACUC-related instruction. More typically, IACUC function at a high-level is criticized in texts focused on animal welfare or animal rights⁶ for being inadequately comprehensive or unwilling to manage difficult ethical concerns. These books generally do not even raise the issue of the quality of IACUC function.¹¹ IRBs and human research protection programs may receive more resources, financial or otherwise, in large academic institutions, as compared with other research oversight committees such as IACUCs and IBCs. This concept is substantiated by the larger body of available literature that discusses IRB operations and human research ethics. Likewise, extensive government support for human research through programs such as clinicaltrials.gov and the Clinical Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) have no analogous support programs for animal research.³⁴ Administrators in human research protection programs may therefore be able to invest more personnel time into tracking IRB performance and performing QI studies. Our analysis of the literature underscores the need for the establishment of more universal criteria for IACUC performance evaluation and the provision of resources that aid IACUC administrators in conducting such evaluations. Expanding the breadth of methodologies for IACUC assessment would reinforce the accessibility and benefits of evaluating IACUC performance. Further, QI data evaluating current IACUC functions can be a valuable mechanism to drive future development of IACUCs on both a local and national scale.