Objectives/Goals: To evaluate an undergraduate nursing externship revised to integrate the updated International Association for Clinical Research Nursing (IACRN) curriculum, designed to strengthen knowledge, skills, and career readiness for the specialty of clinical research nursing (CRN). Methods/Study Population: A 192-hour, 8-week summer externship was conducted at the Rockefeller University (2022–2025), accepting two rising junior nursing students annually. The curriculum included lectures on clinical research principles and processes, IRB observation, informed consent simulation, a mock IRB, and rotations in bionutrition, pharmacy, bioinformatics, and laboratory processing. Externs also completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative on Good Laboratory Practice and lab safety modules. Program evaluations included a pre- and post-test, a 30-item knowledge exam to assess understanding of clinical research concepts, as well as ratings by the mentors across professional competencies, and open-ended questions to obtain feedback from the externs. Results/Anticipated Results: Externs’ knowledge scores rose from pretest averages of 58–70% to post-test scores of 73–86%, a gain of ~20 points. Surveys revealed an improved understanding of research processes, particularly in areas such as informed consent and protocol design. Hands-on activities, lab processing, dietary simulation, and pharmacy were most valued. Mentors consistently rated externs as “Good” to “Excellent” in terms of professionalism, adaptability, and teamwork. Externs reported a greater interest in CRN careers and a deeper appreciation for the specialty’s breadth. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This externship, which embedded updated IACRN competencies at the undergraduate level, successfully enhanced knowledge and understanding of the field. Its innovative, replicable model demonstrates how early exposure can expand the clinical research nursing pipeline and prepare future CRN leaders.

Objectives/Goals: To present findings from a focus group study that evaluate clinical research professionals’ (CRPs) team science learning preferences. The study aims to better understand CRPs’ experiential perceptions of team science skills, training gaps, team cohesion, conflict, and contributions for their preferred team science training. Methods/Study Population: This study targeted CRPs across various roles in Academic Health Centers via focus groups. The focus groups will assess current skills, identify training gaps, and share experiences on team cohesion, team conflict, team contribution, and their thoughts and perceptions about clinical research professional team science training. The focus groups will be held via Zoom in the Autumn of 2024 with volunteer participants from an initial survey that was conducted earlier in 2024. We will report on combined data from multiple 90-minute focus groups, with approximately 6 participants per session. Results/Anticipated Results: The focus group facilitator’s guide includes questions informed by the CRP team science learning needs assessment results and other questions on team issues that would benefit from focused training. Focus group methods and demographic characteristics of the participants by role and experience level will also be presented. Qualitative analyses of recorded focus-group discussions will present key themes by demographic groups, and as a whole, these data will contribute to the development of CRP team science educational programs and toolkits. Discussion/Significance of Impact: CRPs are vital members of clinical translational science teams. Overlooking CRP team science training can negatively affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the clinical translational science enterprise. CRP team science skills will foster a more collaborative and productive research environment.

There has been an erosion of trust in medical care and clinical research, and this has raised issues about whether institutions and investigators conducting clinical research are worthy of trust. We review recent literature on research on trust and trustworthiness in the clinical research enterprise and identify opportunities to enhance trustworthiness, which will likely increase participant trust in clinical research. In addition, we review materials reporting the results of national polls related to the public’s trust in different occupations. The literature on trustworthiness and trust is complex and suffers from a lack of agreement on definitions of trust and trustworthiness and actions to enhance trustworthiness. Nonetheless, institutions need to take action to address the many elements that contribute to being perceived as trustworthy. As a complementary approach, since nurses have consistently ranked highest on trust by the public for twenty-two straight years, we analyze the features that likely account for the public’s uniform high regard for nurses. We propose specific actions to enhance the role of research nurses in the research enterprise, without compromising their primary role as participant advocates, that we have adopted at Rockefeller University to gain the benefits of the public’s trust in nurses in building trustworthiness.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To comprehensively understand the training needs of clinical research professionals (CRPs) employed across various roles in team science. The purpose is to identify areas for competency development and determine the modality of training desired to enhance their skills further. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This study targets Clinical Research Professionals (CRPs) across various roles in Academic Health Centers via an online survey. From novices to experts, participants are often trained on the job covering some clinical research competencies, but team science aspects like communication and leadership are usually overlooked. The survey will assess current skills, identify training gaps, and explore preferred learning methods and topics. Participants will be recruited through the CTSA hub research network. Additionally, they'll share experiences of team cohesion, dynamics, conflict, and their contributions to the team through participation in focus group sessions.The focus groups will be held via Zoom with volunteer participants from the survey (6 per session, 3 sessions, N=18). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The recently developed leveled CRP team science competencies based on Lotrechianno (2022) will be the basis of the survey items. Demographic characteristics of the participants by role will be presented. Moreover, perceptions of team science applications, learning needs and training preferences will be described. Results will be compared across CRP roles. Finally, three recorded and transcribed focus groups (n=18) will contribute to knowledge gained through this research allowing for a deeper understanding of training needs. Qualitative analyzes of recorded focus-group discussions will present key themes. Qualitative data will be coded by more than two people for interrater reliability. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This study offers the first needs assessment on academic medical center CRP team science learning requirements, utilizing newly established CRP individual and team competencies. Findings will guide the creation of tailored training and research initiatives.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Team science competencies are not well-defined for nonfaculty staff of Clinical Research Professionals (CRPs) who conduct research. Using an existing framework, our work has determined skills associated with team science competencies as related to CRPs. Our team also outlined examples of those skills on a fundamental, skilled, and advanced level. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The team consists of both CRPs and those working in the Team Science space. This team used a modified Delphi approach to determine the skills and leveling examples of each team science competency. The team broke into four groups and was assigned 3-4 competencies each. Each group determined skills needed to support (exhibit, promote) each competency and then described an example of this skill at the fundamental, skilled, and advanced levels. Once each group was finished with their assigned competencies, they were re-assigned to a different group for review and changes. Finally, team science and CRP experts reviewed the skills and levels. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our results are a rubric that defines 3-5 practical skills per described competency. These skills are needed to support and promote each competency as a CRP. An additional outcome from this work includes examples of each skill at the fundamental, skilled, and advanced levels in a CRP’s career. Each leveled example is described in a concise, actionable way using Bloom’s taxonomy. This rubric is meant to be easily understood, very useable and able to be used in conjunction with existing CRP competency frameworks. By using Bloom’s taxonomy, we set the stage for future educational programming in Team Science skill-building for clinical research professionals. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Team science concepts and competencies have been increasingly integrated into translational science teams. However, team science competencies related to CRPs have remained largely undefined. Our work helps to define these competencies for CRPs in a practical way. Our rubric fills gaps in, and builds on, existing CRP competency frameworks.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Our goal is to explore and collaboratively identify the team science competencies essential for Clinical Research Professionals at all experience levels and how these competencies relate to the Joint Task Force for Clinical Translational Research Professionals Competencies. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Team science competencies for clinical research professionals are poorly defined. The JTF Clinical Trial Competencies lack sufficient emphasis on team science, though it is briefly included in two JTF competency domains: Leadership & Professionalism, and Communication & Teamwork. The competencies primarily focus on tasks related to clinical research and basic knowledge of product development; however, a conceptual model for applying the competencies using a team science lens is needed. Currently, the JTF competency figure is often thought of as sequential, given the competencies are numbered, creating the misconception that the last competencies are less important. We support a new figure showing the permeability of team science across competencies and the connectedness and equality of the competencies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our anticipated results are to show the integral nature of team science in clinical research professional communities of practice. Once complete, we will have identified measurable team science competency-based skills essential for clinical research professionals at various levels of expertise. Understanding the multi-dimensional team science competencies will inform targeted team science education and training for clinical research professionals. Our revised competency framework provides an improved team science conceptual model for clinical translational science. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our work will define team science competencies as related to clinical research professionals at all experience levels. The interdependence of teams across clinical trial activities necessitates a consideration of an improved conceptual framework for clinical translational team science competencies.

The ability to effectively lead an interdisciplinary translational team is a crucial component of team science success. Most KL2 Clinical Scholars have been members of scientific teams, but few have been team science leaders. There is a dearth of literature and outcome measures of effective Team Science Leadership in clinical and translational research. We focused our curriculum to emphasize Team Science Leadership, developed a list of Team Science Leadership competencies for translational investigators using a modified Delphi method, and incorporated the competencies into a quantitative evaluation survey. The survey is completed on entry and annually thereafter by the Scholar; the Scholar’s primary mentor and senior staff who educate and interact with the Scholar rate the Scholar at the end of each year. The program leaders and mentor review the results with each Scholar. The survey scales had high internal consistency and good factor structure. Overall ratings by mentors and senior staff were generally high, but ratings by Scholars tended to be lower, offering opportunities for discussion and career planning. Scholars rated the process favorably. A Team Science Leadership curriculum and periodic survey of attained competencies can inform individual career development and guide team science curriculum development.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: 1) illustrate the varied challenges individuals with a cocaine use disorder experience in daily life, 2) demonstrate techniques for empathizing and building rapport with potential subjects, and 3) identify recruitment obstacles and solutions. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Methods: We use a multi-source strategy to recruit our participants and employ practical techniques to enhance protocol adherence. Methods include a welcoming environment, establishing a routine with flexibility, personalized attention, and incentives for participation. Study population: Individuals with a cocaine use disorder. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Understanding the life of an individual with a cocaine use disorder is paramount to successful recruitment and retention in addiction research studies. Our clinicians have been able to recruit and retain participants successfully by employing empathetic interpersonal skills, personalized attention, and health-related incentives. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 69,029 people died of a drug overdose during the period from February 2018 to February 2019, with 23%, due to cocaine. While methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance treatment allow opioid-dependent individuals achieve a sense of physical and mental stability, there is no pharmaceutical treatment to help a cocaine-dependent individual cope with cravings or the depression and anxiety that typically follow a cocaine binge. The development of a cocaine use disorder is multi-factorial and presents a significant challenge in terms of discovering treatments, identifying efficient recruitment and retention strategies is the first step for effective research.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The purpose of the mentored writing workgroup developed at The CCTS at the Rockefeller University (CCTS RU) was to promote scholarship among clinical research nurses (CRN). The goal was to publish and/or present their projects at national professional association meetings. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A two-part writing workshop was presented at RU in December 2018 and January 2019. Members of the RU nursing staff and CRNs from local institutions were invited to attend. Twenty-four CRNs participated in the workshops. The first workshop focused on the writing process, styles of writing and how to get started. The second concentrated on components of a manuscript, categories of papers, selection of the journal, and communications with the editorial team. After the workshops, the CRNs from RU was offered the opportunity to participate in the mentored writing workgroup. To participate, the CRN had to agree to attend scheduled writing meetings and submit written work for each session. The scheduled submission of written materials ensured the CRN was committed to completing their manuscripts or presentations. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Three CRNs from RU participated in the writing workgroup. Two papers were accepted for publication, and one manuscript is under-review, two abstracts accepted by an international professional organization, and two presentations conducted at an area nursing school and medical center. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: A mentored writing workgroup wherein participants commit to attend writing meetings and to submit written materials in a scheduled-matter can promote scholarship. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESCRIPTION: NA.