Looking to History vs. Focusing on the Current Trial - Applied Clinical Trials

ADVERTISEMENT

See our 2013 Buyers Guide Digital Edition.
Looking to History vs. Focusing on the Current Trial

Source: Applied Clinical Trials

Editor’s Note: This is the second post in a three-part series. You can read the first post here, and the third post here.


Perhaps the BMS pilot project focused so intensely on gathering historical information as a basis for developing risk-based analytical assessments, KPIs and KRIs that the project ream had little opportunity to address process improvement, technology development and staff training and development. If so, this raises two questions:

  • Without process improvement, supporting technology and staff retraining, once the project succeeds in defining KPIs and KRIs, how will it be possible to utilize them in a manner that substantially improves trial management, execution and data quality?
  • Does overwhelming emphasis on the historical perspective obscure the paramount importance of developing KPIs and KRIs as management tools to address the unique operational issues of each individual trial, including issues that emerge only during execution of the current trial?

Historical information and analytical foundations for RBM are important, but, in my view, RBM is about proactively managing each individual trial to quality and efficiency goals.  Prospective considerations based on timely information are more important to RBM success than the historical record.  Effectively managing the current trial involves far more than having a central analytical staff identify KPIs and determine triggers for monitoring visits. Central staff should be managing the study in real time, continuously addressing issues in the field and resolving many issues without the need for site visits. Properly implemented, RBM is not a discrete activity but an integral component of proactive trial management.


[The concluding post in this three-part series will consider cost and quality implications of risk-based monitoring.]


This post first appeared on the Health Decisions blog, Trials Without Tribulations.

ADVERTISEMENT

blog comments powered by Disqus

ADVERTISEMENT

UPCOMING CONFERENCES

8th Annual Forum on Transparency and Aggregate Spend 2014
Washington, DC
August 18-20, 2014

eSource Data in Clinical Investigations
Philadelphia, PA
August 20-21, 2014

Pharmacovigilance 2014
Philadelphia, PA
September 10-11, 2014

Collaborative Research Summit
Philadelphia, PA
October 15-16, 2014

See All Conferences >>

Survey
As it creates a plan to implement the US biosimilar pathway, should FDA:
Borrow heavily from EMA's pathway program?
Borrow lightly from EMA's pathway program?
Create entirely its own pathway program?
Borrow heavily from EMA's pathway program?
87%
Borrow lightly from EMA's pathway program?
6%
Create entirely its own pathway program?
8%
View Results
Untitled Document
Source: Applied Clinical Trials,
Click here