During a training module this week, a group of monitors were discussing the importance of back-up coverage. Monitors that are conducting visits in the field know that juggling schedules can be very challenging. To provide thorough and consistent monitoring, experienced monitors are assigned to a clinical trial or a study team. Next, training is extended into the therapeutic area of research and sponsor specific trainings including SOPs and monitoring plans.  But what about back-up coordinators- are they trained and ready?

In the realm of clinical research, two functions often work together to complement each other to create an additive impact on the overall quality and integrity of a clinical trial. The two functions are clinical monitoring and auditing. But how do these work hand-in-hand, and how are they different?

Gamification is defined as “the process of turning an activity or task into a game or something resembling a game.” This concept has been leveraged in the fields of education and marketing to create engagement with a topic or product by using game playing techniques such as point scoring, achievement badges, or virtual currency.

Please take time to review Emily Haglund’s article “Risk Management in Clinical Research Process and Application” that was recently posted on GxP Lifeline.  The applicable guidances for good clinical practice (GCP), ICH E6 and ISO14155, state explicitly that the sponsor is responsible for quality assurance and quality control. One aspect of quality involves how risks are approached and managed throughout the course of a clinical trial, and is the focus of this article.

Do you know why rules, regulations and standards exist? What exactly is Good Clinical Practice and how does this help protect patients and data integrity?

Often, when one thinks of the team that actually brings a new medical device or drug to market, the first people that come to mind are those at the sponsor company and the investigators at the individual sites – the leaders of the study.  What may be less known, though, is that often the study hinges on the shoulders of the Clinical Research Coordinator (CRC).  Briefly, CRCs are responsible for the accurate maintenance of the records for the trial, as well as many parts of the trial that otherwise may be overlooked.  Some of the major responsibilities of the CRC are:

Coming from a background of working as a patient care nurse in the ICU, I would witness the consent process on a daily basis for biopsies, bronchoscopies, chest tubes, arterial lines, etc... These were non-research procedures; they were procedures to assist in the treatment of the critically ill. When I first started a career in research, I already knew that obtaining consent was more than a piece of paper and that it was a discussion and a process, but “a consent is a consent” for standard treatment in a hospital or for research, right? WRONG- I found out very quickly through IMARC’s training program that obtaining consent in research involves so many different specific elements, different from an informed consent for non-research procedures.

When it comes to the Battle of the Sexes you may be surprised to hear this competition is a popular one in the field of health research. On Tuesday, September 22, 2014 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it will be distributing $10.1 million in grants to scientists and research facilities studying a host of topics, from drug addiction to migraines.  These funds are intended to help support the inclusion of more research subjects, particularly females, in studies that require a little more representation of the XX chromosomes in their laboratory subjects. This means the participation of more female animals, even cell lines, in research laboratories.  The remainder of the awarded money will be used to supplement analysis of gender differences in the studies’ resulting data.

I am often asked by industry colleagues that if I had to pick just one “favorite” federal regulation what would it be?  The answer is easily 21 CFR 812.100, as this regulation embodies 95% of the investigational site non-compliances  I observe as I conduct clinical investigator audits. Let me elaborate.

In clinical research this phrase is used to emphasize the importance of complete and accurate documentation to site staff.  Still, every year we see that FDA issues multiple warning letters which cite, “You failed to maintain adequate and accurate records.”