How are the best practices for designated reviews typically sequenced?

The best practices for designated reviews are typically sequenced in a manner where results are solicited from designated reviewers before any formal approval occurs by the committee. This approach allows for an efficient review process where designated reviewers, who are chosen for their expertise or specific knowledge related to the protocol being reviewed, can provide their insights and critiques based on the materials presented to them.

Gathering feedback from these reviewers upfront ensures that any concerns or recommendations are addressed prior to the committee's formal evaluation. This not only aids in refining the protocols but also enhances the overall quality of the review process by incorporating specialized input. Moreover, soliciting results from designated reviewers before the full committee meeting helps streamline discussions and decision-making during the committee's review session, ultimately leading to more informed decisions on the proposed research activities.

In contrast, the other options suggest sequences that typically do not align with best practices for designated reviews. For instance, distributing protocols to all members before assigning designated reviewers can lead to confusion and diluted feedback, as not all members may have the necessary expertise related to specific protocols. Consequently, it is critical to first identify the appropriate reviewers and then gather their insights to create a conducive environment for thorough evaluation by the committee.