August 7, 2019
Tag(s): Industry Voices
Despite being the end user of many eclinical technologies, the clinical research sites rarely have a seat at the table when it comes to system design. If they were to join the conversation between sponsor and RTSM/IRT vendor, what do you think they would recommend? What changes would they suggest? How much invaluable information are we leaving behind by not asking?
In May, our inaugural Site Advisory Group (SAG) convened clinical research sites from across the country to tackle the inefficiencies in site-facing technology, specifically RTSM; This topic became a focal point of discussion.
After diving into their top pain points—duplicative work, the lack of system integrations, training, the abundance of email notifications, pages and pages of logins and so on—attendees brainstormed what suggestions they would provide to their trial counterpart to minimize these challenges, if they were given the opportunity to influence the IRT/RTSM design:
1. "One of the greatest challenges with design is that once we dispense the medication or register a visit, we don't have any way of doing drug accountability."
2. "One aspect to change would be to incorporate all the systems into one."
In regards to technological barriers, there are commonalities among all trials that we, as an industry, should work to improve. But in order to get the most value from our sites during individual studies, it is essential you continue to ask for feedback - not just in RTSM design, but trial design too.
Explore our Site Voices Campaign for more insight into the impact technology decisions have on sites, as well as into the overall challenges sites face operationalizing their trials.
Sabrina Fei, 4G Clinical Senior Marketing Manager, has 6 years of experience in B2B healthcare marketing. Prior to joining the 4G team, Sabrina worked at a life sciences event organization, where she led a team of marketers to generate and implement impactful, multifaceted marketing strategies.