Compliance module
IACUC review with the species section built in
Electronic protocol submission with dedicated species, procedures and protocol-exception sections, committee review, amendments and renewals — on the same record as the awards the work is funded by.
The failure this replaces
The protocol is a Word document, and the species count is in paragraph four.
Animal work has more structured detail than almost anything else a compliance office reviews — species, strains, counts, procedures, and every departure from a standard. Captured as prose, none of it can be queried, so the answer to "how many animals are covered by currently approved protocols" is a person reading files.
The same shape causes the review rounds. A committee cannot make a determination from a summary, so it asks, and the investigator answers by email, and the answer is now somewhere other than the protocol.
What it does
Submission, review, and the years afterwards
Protocol submission
The investigator builds an electronic protocol application and submits it to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. One route in, rather than a form emailed to whoever is currently chairing.
Species, in their own section
A dedicated species section rather than a free-text box, so counts, strains and justifications are recorded as data the committee can review and the office can report on.
Procedures, described where they can be reviewed
Comprehensive procedure sections gather the detail an IACUC actually needs to make a determination, instead of the summary that fits in a paragraph and then generates three rounds of questions.
Protocol exceptions, recorded as such
Exceptions have their own section. A departure from a standard that lives in a comment thread is a departure nobody can find at renewal, which is exactly when somebody looks for it.
Amendments, renewals and expirations
The document tracks versions, amendments, renewals and impending expirations. An expiring protocol is something the system knows about before the coordinator does, which is the difference between a renewal and a lapse.
Linked to the funding it supports
The Streams function links a protocol to the proposals, institutional proposals and awards it belongs to, so a sponsor's question about whether approval covers the funded work is a lookup rather than an investigation.
Why it is not a separate purchase
One committee machine, three compliance areas
IRB, IACUC and IBC are the same shape: an investigator builds a protocol, a committee reviews it, and somebody has to notice before approval lapses. Buying them separately means learning three systems to run one process three times.
In Streamlyne they share the submission, review and committee machinery, and all three link to proposals, institutional proposals and awards through the same Streams function. IACUC adds what animal work needs on top of that, rather than being a different product.
- IACUCSpecies, procedures and protocol exceptions
- IRBHuman-subjects protocols on the same machinery
- IBCBiosafety, same again
- COIFinancial disclosure, assigned per project
- Export controlActivity tracking wired into Negotiations
Questions
What an IACUC office asks
What is IACUC software?
The system an institution uses to run animal care and use review: the investigator builds and submits the protocol application, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee reviews it, and the record holds the determination, the amendments, the continuing review and the expiration. Its real job is answering one question without a search — for this study, right now, is approval current and does it cover what is actually being done.
How is this different from the IRB module?
Same submission, review and committee machinery, different subject matter. IACUC adds the sections animal work needs and human-subjects work does not: species, procedures in detail, and protocol exceptions. A coordinator who has learned one already knows where things are in the other, which is most of the argument for taking both from the same system.
Does it handle amendments and continuing review?
Both, and the second is where paper processes usually fail. Versions, amendments, renewals and impending expirations sit on the same record as the protocol, so the approved version and its change history cannot drift apart. First submissions get attention; a continuing review that quietly did not happen is the one that costs you.
Can protocols be linked to the awards they support?
Yes, through the Streams function — the same mechanism IRB, IBC and COI use. The compliance record and the funding record are connected rather than reconciled by hand when an auditor asks.
Can we start with IACUC alone?
Yes. Institutions commonly begin with whichever compliance area is costing them the most time. Because it is one codebase, adding IRB or IBC afterwards is a configuration exercise rather than a second implementation — and the committee machinery your coordinators already know does not change.
Which interface does IACUC use?
The compliance modules run in the classic Streamlyne interface today, and we would rather say so here than have you find it in a demo. You get the full protocol lifecycle on the same records as the rest of your research administration; you do not get the newer UI that pre-award has. If a modern interface for compliance is a requirement rather than a preference, ask us where that sits before you evaluate anything else.