Register Now - Unlocking Longitudinal Patient-Reported Outcomes: The Untapped Value of Specialty Pharmacyocking
News|Articles|January 1, 2011

Applied Clinical Trials

  • Applied Clinical Trials-01-01-2011
  • Volume 20
  • Issue 1

Site Coordinators: An Untapped Resource

Throughout the entire clinical development, who has the most interaction with prospective and active subjects? Who is primarily responsible for the quality of the source data that ultimately decides the approvability of all biopharmaceutical products?

Throughout the entire clinical development, who has the most interaction with prospective and active subjects? Who is primarily responsible for the quality of the source data that ultimately decides the approvability of all biopharmaceutical products?

Principal investigators were asked who satisfaction surveys should focus on during a study. Site Coordinators were named more than half the time, ahead of PIs themselves.

Yes, the answers are identical: the site coordinator, study coordinator, or clinical research coordinator, whatever title you choose. These individuals are the keystone, the glue that holds the study process together. Without them very few patients would be randomized, informed consent forms would not be completed, site contracts would not be negotiated, data would not be entered, queries would not get resolved, and database lock would be delayed.

Delay is the key point. Site coordinators help a study stay on track. Without good ones, hitting milestones would be nearly impossible.

ISR dedicated an entire study (The Voice of the Site Coordinator— www.isrreports.com/reports) to understanding site coordinator's experiences and perspectives on improving the success of clinical trials.

—Industry Standard Research

Articles in this issue


Related to this article

Where AI Leads in Trial Design—and Where Humans Still Need To
In this video interview, Claire Riches, VP of clinical solutions at Citeline, makes the case for AI as a sophisticated strategic advisor in trial design while arguing that humans must remain in the lead—especially when factors the model can't fully account for are at stake.