Skip Navigation Archive: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Archive: Agency for Healthcare Research Quality
Archival print banner

This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.

Please go to for current information.

Frequently Asked Questions

Partnerships in Implementing Patient Safety

The following frequently asked questions (FAQs) address content issues and application procedures related to the Partnerships in Implementing Patient Safety (PIPS) Request for Application (RFA).


General Issues for this RFA
Principal Investigator, Key Personnel, and Institutions
Mechanisms of Support and Funds Available
Budget Pages and Cost Issues
PIPS Project Requirements, Evaluation, and Data Issues
Required Assurances, Certifications, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval
Review Considerations, Award Issues, and AHRQ Contacts


General Issues for this RFA

Question 1: Where can I get the Request for Application (RFA)?

Answer: RFA HS-05-012 is available in HTML format on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Web site.

Question 2: Is it necessary to submit a Letter of Intent by December 19, 2004, to have an application accepted? Can the Letter of Intent be E-mailed to AHRQ?

Answer: You do not have to submit a Letter of Intent to have your application accepted. However, AHRQ encourages potential applicants to submit a Letter of Intent, by E-mail or surface mail, because it helps the Agency plan for the review process.

The surface mail address for Letters of Intent is:

James Burgdorf
Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
540 Gaither Road
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: (301) 427-1801

The E-mail address for the Letter of Intent is If you E-mail your Letter of Intent, it would be helpful if you send a followup copy to James Burgdorf by surface mail, at the address above.

Question 3: What is the due date for grant applications?

Answer: Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:

Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20857-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)

Your complete application must be received at the above address by January 19, 2005. This is a fixed deadline. Applications received after January 19, 2005, will not be accepted.

At the time of submission, two additional hard copies of the application, labeled "Advanced Copy(s)" must also be sent to:

James Burgdorf
Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
540 Gaither Road
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: (301) 427-1801

Question 4: When will grant awards be issued?

Answer: The earliest anticipated award date is June, 2005.

Return to Contents


Principal Investigator, Key Personnel, and Institutions

Question 5: Is it possible for the Principal Investigator (PI) to not be located at the applicant institution?

Answer: The PI usually is, but need not be, an employee of the applicant institution. If the PI is not an employee, the applicant institution must have a contractual or written arrangement with that person for purposes of programmatic and financial control and other awardee responsibilities.

Possibilities include a consortium or third-party arrangement with the employer of the proposed PI. In this case, the employing institution is a collaborating institution. Even less common, but possible, is a contract arrangement with the PI. However, this option is difficult because it requires an airtight contract that ties the individual to the responsibilities inherent in the role of PI. If you have this type of arrangement in mind, AHRQ recommends that you call the Grants Management Office (See FAQs on AHRQ Contacts for additional information.)

Question 6: Who would be an appropriate PI for a PIPS grant? Is it acceptable for a PI to have a masters degree as a senior degree, rather than a Ph.D. or M.D.? How would the peer review assess that?

Answer: The choice of PI will be judged on that individual's skill in carrying out the proposed project. These grants are focusing on implementation of safety practices at the "real world" end. Experience in that environment is very important for a PI. Someone with a masters degree but highly qualified in terms of relevant experience could very well trump another individual who has the research skills and a Ph.D. but has never been "down in the trenches" implementing healthcare practices. The peer review will be focused on assessing the qualifications of the PI to lead the implementation of the safe practice intervention.

Question 7: Why do you require the PI to have a time commitment of at least 15 percent? What if we do not have any staff members who could devote that amount of time to the project?

Answer: For the PIPS projects, AHRQ believes that the PI needs to have a significant commitment to the project to successfully lead the implementation of a safe practice intervention. In addition, the PIPS projects are cooperative agreements which will require the PI to have significant interaction with the other PIPS PIs and AHRQ staff. Finally, the PIPS projects will have project monitoring requirements which will necessitate the PI to have at least 15 percent committed to the project. If a proposed PI can not commit to 15 percent, AHRQ suggests finding another team member to serve as the PI.

Question 8: Can an application be submitted with two co-PIs rather than a single PI?

Answer: No. The rule is that one individual must be the responsible individual for purposes of project management interactions with the funding agency (AHRQ in this case). For management purposes internal to the project or the institution(s) involved, you can certainly have co-PIs. But one of those individuals must be named as the PI with primary responsibility to the Federal Government.

Question 9: Is there a limit to the number of key personnel that should be listed? Is there a reasonable or preferable number? Will AHRQ consider the number of key personnel in the review process?

Answer: For purposes of grant review, the right number of key personnel is the number required to do that particular project successfully. There is no specific number or range that is right for every project. The strengths represented in the key personnel—their individual qualifications and their contribution to a total team effort—will be considered by the reviewers. The key personnel should be reasonable for the project; a project that lists 50 key personnel would not be reasonable.

Question 10: Can the same institution submit two applications?

Answer: AHRQ is interested in receiving one application per institution. AHRQ strongly encourages interested applicants from within a single institution to collaborate and submit one application. If you have questions, please discuss them with AHRQ program and grants management staff.

Question 11: Are foreign institutions eligible to apply for PIPS grants?

Answer: Because this RFA is principally intended to increase the implementation of safe practice interventions in the U.S., foreign institutions are not eligible to apply for grants. Applications from foreign institutions will be returned without review and no awards will be made to foreign institutions. Foreign organizations may participate in projects as members of consortia or as subcontractors.

Question 12: Can individuals apply for PIPS grants?

Answer: Awards are granted to institutions; therefore individuals are not eligible applicants under this RFA.

Question 13: Do eligible institutions have to be hospitals or nursing homes or can they be Departments of Family Medicine or a Practice-Base Research Network (PBRNs)?

Answer: Eligible institutions can be hospitals, nursing homes, Departments of Medicine, or PBRNs. The RFA requires that applicant institutions that are not health care provider organizations must have a provider organization which is actively engaged in the delivery of health care as a participating partner in the proposed project.

Question 14. What is considered a health care provider organization?

Answer: For this RFA, a health care provider organization is defined as any organization engaged in the direct delivery of care to patients in any setting including but not limited to: in-patient, out-patient or ambulatory centers, community health centers, emergency medical services, laboratories, diagnostic centers, pharmacies, blood centers, long term care, and/or home care.

Question 15: Can a single institution apply to the PIPS RFA or does it need to be part of a consortium?

Answer: An institution can apply by itself or submit an application as part of a consortium. However, foreign organizations must be members of a consortium or subcontractors, and non-health care provider organizations must partner with a provider organization.

Return to Contents


Mechanisms of Support and Funds Available

Question 16: What mechanism is being used for the PIPS RFA? Will there be more announcements for implementation grants in the future?

Answer: The RFA uses the U18 award mechanism. As an applicant, you will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project. This RFA is a one-time solicitation.

Question 17: The RFA states that $3 million is available for award in Fiscal Year 2005. Can we assume there will be funding in Fiscal Year 2006 for the second year of projects?

Answer: Yes, you can assume that funding will be available for the second year of projects. For PIPS projects, funding beyond the initial budget period will depend upon the site visits, annual progress reviews by AHRQ, and availability of funds.

Question 18: Is the maximum level of AHRQ support $300,000 per year ($600,000 total) or $300,000 total over a two-year project?

Answer: The maximums are per year: For PIPS projects, which are a maximum of 24 months, that means $300,000 maximum per year in total costs, both direct and indirect, to the government.

Question 19: Is there a penalty for smaller projects (those under the maximum support levels)?

Answer: No, not at all. We encourage smaller projects, since they allow AHRQ to fund more projects that are worth doing.

Return to Contents


Budget Pages and Cost Issues

Question 20: In the budget pages (Forms 4 and 5), it appears that the Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs apply only to Consortium/Contractual Costs. How does the applicant institution show its F&A Costs in the budget pages?

Answer: You are correct that the Facilities and Administrative Costs for the applicant institution do not appear on its budget pages, which only show direct costs. (The F&A Costs of collaborating institutions are carried forward to the applicant institution's budget forms as direct costs to the applicant institution. This is why that item is included with Consortium/Contractual Costs). The applicant institution's F&A Costs appear in the application only as the difference between the direct costs and total costs subitems of Items 7 and 8 on the Face Page (Form Page 1).

On the Checklist Form Page, which should be the last page of your application, you should enter the latest approved F&A Costs indirect rate approved by your Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) Regional Office or other cognizant Federal agency, along with the agreement date (see Section 10. Checklist, in the Instructions for PHS 398, for further details). You then apply this indirect rate to the appropriate direct cost base for Initial Budget Period from the applicant institution's combined budget Form Page 4 to get the first-year indirect costs (F&A Costs) for the applicant institution. Add this indirect cost to the Total Direct Costs for Initial Budget Period and enter this total for Item 7B, Total Costs, on the Face Page. Similarly, calculate the F&A Costs for the entire project period using the appropriate direct cost base for Entire Proposed Project Period item at the bottom of the applicant institution's combined budget Form Page 5. Add this amount to the Total Direct Costs for the Entire Proposed Project Period and enter the total for Item 8B, Total Costs, on the Face Page.

Question 21: If two institutions are collaborating on one project, should they each submit a separate application, or can one institution be included as a collaborator on a single application?

Answer: If there is truly one project, a single application is indicated, with one institution as the applicant organization and the other as a collaborating institution. AHRQ recommends that each "collaborating" institution complete and sign a PHS 398 Face Page (Form Page 1) and include it at the front of its budget pages.

Question 22: For a collaborator or subcontractor, can a Letter of Intent be used in lieu of including a Face Page for that entity?

Answer: Yes, a Consortium Intent Statement can be used in lieu of including a Face Page for the collaborator.

Question 23: What should be included in a Consortium Letter of Intent?

Answer: A Consortium Letter of Intent should certify that the collaborating institution will enter into a written contract or agreement that is in compliance with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and policies. Acceptable language would be:

"The appropriate programmatic and administrative personnel of each institution involved in this grant application will establish written inter-institutional agreements that will ensure compliance with all pertinent Federal regulations and policies."

If the PI is an employee of the collaborating institution, then both the PI and the Authorized Official of the collaborating institution should sign the Letter of Intent.

Question 24. If a contractor is supplying services to the project, does the contractor need a separate budget (Form Pages 4 and 5 plus justification), or can the contractor be listed as a cost item on one of the main budgets?

Answer: You can do it either way, but you need to provide adequate documentation for however you arrive at the bottom-line cost for that contractor. If it is an individual, a pro-forma invoice indicating a unit rate and number of units, or other basis, can be included in the budget justification for the amount listed for Consortium/Contractual Costs on Form Pages 4 and 5. If an institution is involved, you should have a separate budget (Form Pages 4 and 5 plus justification pages) for that institution unless the involvement is strictly fee-for-service. To roll up the total amounts, include the contractor-institution's bottom line costs under the Consortium/Contractual Costs on Form Pages 4 and 5 of the main budgets, where appropriate.

Question 25: Does AHRQ have a specific indirect cost rate that it allows on applications?

Answer: No. An applicant Institution should use the indirect cost rate approved for it by a cognizant Federal agency. If it does not yet have an approved indirect rate, see the next question.

Question 26: If my institution does not have an indirect cost rate approved for Federal funding applications, how does it get one?

Answer: If an applicant institution is seeking a Federal grant and does not yet have an approved indirect cost rate, the following procedure can be used. Using the guidelines contained in the applicable cost principles on what should be included in the indirect cost pool, the institution should calculate a proposed indirect rate. Use this rate to calculate the Total Costs for the grant application Face Page. Enter the rate used on the Checklist Form Page and indicate that it is a provisional rate.

If the application is successful and an award is made, the applicant organization is required to submit an indirect cost proposal to the appropriate Federal oversight entity within 90 days of grant award, and will be informed at that time of the specific procedures to be followed. Failure to submit the indirect cost proposal within the 90-day period may result in loss of recovery of those indirect costs from the Federal agency funding the project.

For awardees that do not yet have their indirect cost proposal approved, the maximum that AHRQ can reimburse, as a provisional F&A rate prior to the approved rate, is 10 percent of salaries and wages. After an indirect rate is approved, adjustments can be made to account for the difference between this provisional rate and the approved rate.

Question 27: Must an organization have a Federally approved indirect cost rate to include indirect costs (F&A Costs) in the Total Costs requested in the application?

Answer: This is a difficult question. An applicant organization is not required to have an indirect rate agreement to receive an award. But it is very difficult to allocate indirect costs to these projects except through an indirect cost pool approved by a Federal cost accounting entity. Any allocation of indirect costs must be done consistently across the entire institution, for all projects. Once an institution takes the route of allocating what would be indirect costs as direct project costs, any future negotiation of an approved indirect cost rate becomes extremely complicated. AHRQ would encourage an institution new to the Federal funding environment to develop a provisional indirect rate and prepare to submit this as the proposed rate for Federal approval when it receives its first grant award (See previous question and answer).

Question 28: Can an indirect cost rate be specific to the proposed project?

Answer: No, with very rare exceptions. Federal agencies are required to negotiate an indirect cost rate at the institution level. That rate will apply to the entire institution for purposes of seeking funding from any Federal agency.

Question 29: How does AHRQ require documentation for in-kind support shown in the budgets as an institutional support?

Answer: By signing the Face Page (see Item 13 and the signature block in the bottom right corner), the official of the applicant institution commits the institution to what has been stated in the application concerning in-kind resources shown in the budgets. That signature suffices to bind the institution legally to what is stated in the application. If the signing official wants more detail about what she/he is committing the institution for, that detail should be explicit in the budget pages (Form Pages 4 and 5 and the supporting budget justification pages). It often helps in the review process to include a letter signed by appropriate senior officials of the institution stating their strong support for the project. Such a letter helps to communicate to the review panel the commitment of the institution to the project.

Question 30: What are examples of budget items can be counted as institutional support?

Answer: Examples of institutional support would include actual dollars, rent, donated equipment and space, institutional funded staff time and effort, or other resource investments. Applicant institutions should indicate institutional support by outlining the specific contributions to the project and providing assurances that their organization and any collaborators are committed to providing these funds and resources to the project.

Question 31: What should be included in the budget for proposed travel for the annual patient safety meeting sponsored or supported by AHRQ? How long is the meeting?

Answer: The PI and at least one program staff member from the project are required to attend the meeting. You may propose that more than two persons from the project attend, but the number of slots for attendees may be limited by space and resource constraints. Your proposed budget should include estimated costs for airfare, three hotel nights, and per diem costs for the number of persons you anticipate bringing, if slots are available.

Return to Contents


PIPS Project Requirements, Evaluation, and Data Issues

Question 32: What counts as an evidence-based safe practice? How do the ratings used in EPC Report No. 43, Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices, relate to how your reviewers will interpret "evidence-based"? Does the evidence need to be directly applied to the specific intervention, or can the intervention be one that is based on sound theory and evidence that similar interventions are effective?

Answer: Applicants will need to be able to make a case for the evidence supporting the safe practice as relevant to reducing the risk your implementation seeks to address. AHRQ will ask the reviewers to exercise their judgment from a broad base of evidence. The EPC Report No. 43 is only one of the sources of evidence that could be used to support the relevance of implementing a particular practice. Evidence could, for example, come from an AHRQ patient safety research grant, from the peer-reviewed literature generally, or even from models in other industries. The applicant's task is to convince the reviewers that the evidence cited is sound, that the implementation plan is sound, and that the target risk is represented in the institution(s) where the practice will be implemented.

Question 33: Should our project focus on a patient safety problem specific to our hospital or one of the major patient safety goals in the literature or identified by AHRQ?

Answer: The proposed safe practice intervention should make a difference in patient care and improved patient safety for your institution. The applicant must justify its selection of a safe practice intervention to eliminate or mitigate the errors, risks, and hazards identified. In addition, AHRQ wants to encourage implementation projects which are generalizable to diverse settings of care, safe practices, and patient populations including priority populations.

Question 34: Does our project need to focus on health information technology (HIT) safe practice interventions? What is meant by not focusing solely on HIT interventions? Can you provide an example?

Answer: No, your project should not focus primarily on HIT. Due to AHRQ's substantial commitment in this area, the PIPS RFA is focusing on safe practice interventions that do not focus solely on the use of health information technology. For example, a solely HIT intervention would be the implementation of an electronic medical record system in a hospital department or an office setting. However, interventions which utilize HIT in a secondary capacity would be allowable under this RFA. For example, an intervention on improving informed consent processes which uses electronic documents and communications to link large institutions with small rural institutions as secondary components would not be considered a primarily HIT intervention.

Question 35: Will organizations with a greater implementation "challenge" be advantaged or disadvantaged in this RFA?

Answer: There is not an advantage or disadvantage to a large organization with a difficult implementation environment. And that holds true for a small institution with perhaps less pressing challenges. The goals of the implementation projects are to inform AHRQ, providers, patients, payers, policy makers, and the public about how safe practice interventions can be successfully implemented in diverse health care settings and lead to safer and better health care for all Americans.

Question 36: What is meant by a risk assessment? Do I need to already have completed a risk assessment in order to start to prepare an application?

Answer: The applicant must document how the risk and hazards were identified and the priority for the organization established. The applicant must identify the patient population impacted by the risks and hazards and outline the expected benefit from the implementation of the safe practice. The risk assessment must be completed by the time of the application. The application must include a risk assessment which documents the medical errors, risks, hazards, and harms to be addressed for the selected safe practice intervention.

For additional assistance on this issue, please contact James Battles, Senior Service Fellow for Patient Safety, telephone: (301) 427-1332, E-mail:

Question 37: What is meant by an implementation toolkit?

Answer: The applicant must describe the tools resulting from their project and should specify projected impact and generalizability of any tools developed. One tool that should be developed during the project is an implementation toolkit. The toolkit should document the lessons learned during the implementation process, and identify any resources and other tools that facilitate adaptation and/or adoption of the safe practice intervention. In addition, the toolkit should focus on documenting the impact of the safe practice intervention on patient care and the manner in which barriers to implementation and adoption were overcome. The plan and process for the development of the implementation toolkit will be worked on collaboratively by AHRQ and the awardees. AHRQ will widely disseminate the tools from the grants, including the implementation toolkits, for adaptation and/or adoption by other institutions.

Question 38: My institution is concerned about liability resulting from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Is there an expectation that a public-use dataset will be created from the work done under one of these grants?

Answer: Not necessarily. It depends on the nature of the project. AHRQ primarily wants documentation of the intervention that was implemented and the evidence for how it worked. If there are data that describe the degree of success of the implementation, AHRQ would want that information to be available, but not as data with individuals identifiable. Any data delivered to AHRQ are subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which requires that identifiers of individuals receiving care be removed before the data come to AHRQ.

Question 39: We would prefer to use data that are not institution-specific, because that would be beyond the requirements for [medical error] reporting? Is that acceptable?

Answer: Yes.

Question 40: For a PIPS project, does the requirement for evaluation and assessment of impact require an evaluation of patient outcomes, or are changes in compliance with a safety practice adequate as the assessed outcome?

Answer: It will depend on the specific safety practice you are implementing. In some cases, you may not be able to get adequate information on patient outcomes, so compliance with the safety practice may be the major portion of the evaluation of outcome.

Question 41: Should the evaluation component focus on the implementation process itself, or the intervention's impact on patient safety outcomes?

Answer: The evaluation plan should focus on the performance of the implementation of the safe practice intervention. In addition, the applicant should describe how safe practice intervention and its outcomes, including impact on patient safety outcomes, will be evaluated and assessed. The evaluation plan should also focus on assessing the generalizability of the intervention and the resource implications.

Question 42: How many project aims be devoted to evaluation? What kinds of evaluation are recommended?

Answer: The PIPS projects are for implementing safe practice interventions not for evaluation projects.

The project requirements include the submission of an evaluation plan which should focus on the performance of the implementation of the safe practice intervention. AHRQ does not have any recommendations on the kinds of evaluation to be used in the projects, but suggests applicants focus on finding an evaluation that is appropriate for the proposed project.

Question 43: If we identify a real risk specific to our institution, how will AHRQ protect the confidential data?

Answer: Pursuant to section 924(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 USC 299c-3(c)), information obtained in the course of any AHRQ supported-study that identifies an individual or entity must be treated as confidential in accordance with any explicit or implicit promises made regarding the possible uses and disclosures of such data. There are now civil monetary penalties for violation of this confidentiality statute [42 USC 299c-3(d)).

Return to Contents


Required Assurances, Certifications, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval

Question 44: Can HHS Form 690 be submitted in lieu of filling out all the assurances and certifications required under Section G of Form PHS 398?

Answer: If your institution has completed a Form 690 and filed it with the Office of Civil Rights, HHS, then the signature of the official identified in Block 13 of the Face page signifies that the institution has already complied. However, the portions of the Research Plan that deals with Human Subjects Research and Vertebrate Animals address project-specific requirements. These sections must be completed, as appropriate for your project.

Question 45: If the Applicant Organization is a non-profit that does not have an in-house Institutional Review Board (IRB), and the proposed project involves intervention at the hospital level rather than with individual patients, is IRB approval required?

Answer: If the project involves human subjects as defined by HHS regulations, you will need an IRB approval, as well as institutional assurance of intent to comply with all applicable regulations, before an award can be made. You do not need an in-house IRB. There are for-profit companies with whom the Applicant Organization can contract, or you may be able to negotiate with another institution to use its IRB. You can either discuss the situation with the HHS Office for Human Research Protections, or consult its Web site at

Question 46: Is a letter from the IRB required with the grant application?

Answer: No, IRB approval is not required at the time the application is submitted. Ideally, you should have the IRB approval letter in hand by the time of award. AHRQ understands that the time between notification of award and the award date will be short, so we would appreciate it if you could have the IRB approval prior to June 30, 2005.

Return to Contents


Review Considerations, Award Issues, and AHRQ Contacts


Question 47: How will these applications be reviewed? What will be the composition of the review group?

Answer: Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened in accordance with standard AHRQ peer review procedures. Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed.

Question 48: What are the review criteria? Does the application need to be strong in all areas?

Answer: The scientific review group will address and consider each of the following criteria in assigning the application's overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application. The criteria are: significance, approach, innovation, investigator, environment, inclusion of priority populations, and budget. For this RFA, there are additional criteria that will be used in the review: responsiveness, evaluation and assessment of impact, generalizability, institutional support and commitment, protection, and inclusion. The application does not need to be strong in all categories.

Question 49: What will the award process be for this RFA? What are the award criteria?

Answer: After the peer review of the application is completed, the PI will receive a written critique called a Summary Statement. After the peer review, AHRQ program staff will contact applicants who are being considered for funding. The PIPS award criteria that will be used to make award decisions include: scientific merit (as determined by peer review), availability of funds, responsiveness to goals and objectives of the RFA, demonstration and evidence of substantial applicant institutional commitment and support, programmatic balance of both the type of applicant institutions (system or individual) and geographic location, potential impact and generalizability of the safe practice intervention (numbers of patients or size of population) and the implementation toolkit, and portfolio balance within AHRQ's Patient Safety Initiative and HHS patient safety activities.

Question 50: How would I be notified of an award?

Answer: A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award will be provided to the applicant organization. The notice of award signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document.


Question 51: Whom should I contact if I have questions about scientific or research issues, including information on the inclusion of women, minorities, and children, and other priority populations?

Answer: Contact either:

Eileen M. Hogan, Project Officer, AHRQ
Telephone: (301) 427-1307


Deborah Queenan, Project Officer, AHRQ
Telephone: (301) 427-1330

Question 52: Whom should I contact if I have financial or grant management questions?

Answer: Contact Dianna Bailey, Grants Management Specialist, AHRQ, telephone: (301) 427-1454, E-mail:

Question 53: Whom should I contact if I have questions about the peer review process?

Answer: Contact Michele Hindi-Alexander, Health Scientist Administrator, AHRQ, telephone: (301) 427-1547, E-mail address:

Return to Contents

Page last reviewed October 2004
Internet Citation: Frequently Asked Questions: Partnerships in Implementing Patient Safety. October 2004. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.


The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.


AHRQ Advancing Excellence in Health Care