Register Now - Beyond Recruitment: The Future of Patient Site Engagement in Oncology Clinical Trials
|Articles|June 10, 2014

Risk-Based Monitoring: Pilot Projects, Functional Service Providers, and Integrated Solutions

Risk-based monitoring provides an opportunity to make the work of CRAs more interesting.

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

An informative recent post by Moe Alsumidaie of Annex Clinical on the Applied Clinical Trials blog, “How Bristol-Myers Squibb is doing Risk-Based Monitoring,” briefly described what the BMS risk-based monitoring pilot project has accomplished as well as issues encountered during implementation.

It is nice to see a big company like BMS getting involved in Risk-Based Monitoring. However, the concluding paragraph of the blog post is a reminder of the challenges that big companies face in the transition to any new technology. It sounds as though the BMS pilot project was laboring under constraints of infrastructure, organization and culture. The concluding paragraph of the post quotes Thomas Verish, Group Director of Data Operations Services, as indicating that the next steps for BMS in the transition to RBM will involve “focusing on educating and developing people, process improvement, identifying technological needs, and sharing experiences with the RBM pilot.”

While these steps are essential to the success of RBM, it is surprising to an outsider that, in 2013-2014, BMS did not consider three of the “next steps” listed to be essential first steps in their RBM pilot project. It is hard to imagine how any RBM implementation could succeed without process improvement, strong supporting technology and staff retraining and development.

Furthermore, the blog post mentioned staff resistance at BMS to changes in roles and responsibilities as a hurdle early in the pilot project. One factor in addressing such resistance is providing staff with improved processes and supporting technology to carry out their new responsibilities. Risk-based monitoring provides an opportunity to make the work of CRAs more interesting, both because it enables them to focus on data and processes most important to project success and because RBM enables CRAs to function more as site managers and less as data checkers (at least in RBM implementations that involve appropriate process improvements and technology). RBM can and should be more appealing to CRAs, not less.

[A follow-up to this post will look at the importance of historical vs. prospective focus in risk-based monitoring.]

This post first appeared on the Health Decisions blog, Trials Without Tribulations http://www.healthdec.com/blog/

 

Michael Rosenberg, MD, MPH, is CEO, Health Decisions, Inc.


Related to this article

Closing the Community Access Gap: Q&A with Kent Thoelke, Paradigm Health
In this Q&A, Kent Thoelke, CEO of Paradigm Health, discusses why participation gaps in community and rural settings come down to both patient cost barriers and site infrastructure, how legacy workflows weigh on community clinics, and what policy and technology changes it would take to make clinical research a real care option for more patients.
© Grispb - © Grispb - stock.adobe.com
Mistral and OpenAI produced identical overall eligibility labels across 200 synthetic patient-study assessments, with criterion-level disagreements concentrated in inclusion criteria where models switch between “Uncertain” and “Not included” when records lack sufficient evidence, so model choice should be driven by deployment architecture, control, and cost rather than assumed interchangeability.
The Human Side of Clinical Trials: Before Burden Becomes Risk, Capturing Friction in Real Time
In Episode 4 of The Human Side of Clinical Trials, host Brian S. McGowan, PhD, FACEHP, chief learning officer and co-founder of ArcheMedX, Inc., speaks with Jason Riis, PhD, CEO and chief behavioral scientist at Behavioralize, about how capturing friction closer to the moment it happens can reveal unclear instructions, technology friction, and workarounds that retrospective surveys and debriefs tend to miss.