In an effort to tease out the priorities of a clinical study site audit, I asked six of our most experienced GCP auditors the following question:
If you only had one hour to conduct a study site audit,
what would you look at?
[Obligatory warnings: Do not try this at home. This is just a simulation. Caveat lectorem. Dinosaurs in the mirror are bigger than they appear. Et cetera.]
Of course it’s not possible to conduct any kind of meaningful audit in so short a time, but it’s an interesting thought exercise because it gets to the heart of study site risk.
We've created this blog to share our perspective on happenings and trends in the pharmaceutical, device, and supplement industry. We welcome your feedback.
Monday, October 15, 2018
Monday, August 13, 2018
What Suprises GCP Auditors?
Last month, I scheduled one-on-one discussions with our most experienced GCP auditors to ask each of them the same question: What surprises you most about the audits you conduct?
I guess you could say that I was the one who was surprised. I’m not sure exactly what I was expecting to hear, but I thought my teammates were going to talk about things that were new. Instead, I heard a lot more about things that have been around for a long time. To a person, my colleagues said they were surprised to be observing some of the same audit findings they were observing 30 years ago...which *is* surprising when you consider most of them were mere children at the time. ;-) It seems we have some stubbornly persistent quality and compliance issues in the biopharma industry that decades of neither experience nor technology have seemed to remedy. And the problems are not just persistent; they’re interrelated.
I guess you could say that I was the one who was surprised. I’m not sure exactly what I was expecting to hear, but I thought my teammates were going to talk about things that were new. Instead, I heard a lot more about things that have been around for a long time. To a person, my colleagues said they were surprised to be observing some of the same audit findings they were observing 30 years ago...which *is* surprising when you consider most of them were mere children at the time. ;-) It seems we have some stubbornly persistent quality and compliance issues in the biopharma industry that decades of neither experience nor technology have seemed to remedy. And the problems are not just persistent; they’re interrelated.
Labels:
audit findings,
auditing,
clinical research,
clinical trials,
eTMF,
GCP,
research sites,
SOPs,
study sites,
training
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Hackin' the GDPR
Trying to comply with the GDPR got you down?
Maybe our parody will cheer you up.
(Sung to the tune of Lennon-McCartney's "Back in the U.S.S.R.")
Maybe our parody will cheer you up.
(Sung to the tune of Lennon-McCartney's "Back in the U.S.S.R.")
Labels:
cookie policy,
data privacy regulation,
EU Data Privacy Regulations,
GDPR,
parody,
privacy policy
Monday, May 14, 2018
eSource Terminology Untangled
True or False:
(1) eSource in clinical trials means eliminating the possibility for transcription errors.
(2) Data collected in Electronic Data Capture (EDC) systems is eSource.
Strictly speaking, both statements are false. If that surprises you, it’s probably because many casual uses of the term “eSource” actually differ from the formal definition laid out by FDA. If the participants in any discussion share the same interpretation of “eSource”, or if it’s clear from context how “eSource” is being used, then no harm, no foul. (Contemporary translation: “Meh.”) BUT…and you know where we’re going with this…when a term can be interpreted in multiple ways, there’s always a possibility for miscommunication and cross talk.
(1) eSource in clinical trials means eliminating the possibility for transcription errors.
(2) Data collected in Electronic Data Capture (EDC) systems is eSource.
Strictly speaking, both statements are false. If that surprises you, it’s probably because many casual uses of the term “eSource” actually differ from the formal definition laid out by FDA. If the participants in any discussion share the same interpretation of “eSource”, or if it’s clear from context how “eSource” is being used, then no harm, no foul. (Contemporary translation: “Meh.”) BUT…and you know where we’re going with this…when a term can be interpreted in multiple ways, there’s always a possibility for miscommunication and cross talk.
Labels:
clinical research,
clinical trials,
Direct Data Entry,
EDC,
EMR/EDC,
eSource,
SDV
Monday, March 19, 2018
Delegation of Authority Log: Tips for Monitors
We may call them “site inspections”, but it’s not the site that’s being inspected when a regulator visits; it’s the Principal Investigator. Though a PI typically delegates study tasks to other staff members, he or she remains solely responsible for the conduct of the study. In fact, the ICH E6(R2) addendum adds two new sections to the international guidance that emphasize PI supervision.That’s what makes the Delegation of Authority (DoA) log so important and why regulatory inspectors care about it so much. A DoA log serves as evidence that a PI has assigned study tasks only to those staff members with the education, training, and experience to carry them out. If delegates are unqualified to perform their tasks, subject safety could be at risk and it’s highly likely that the study data would be unusable.
Labels:
clinical trials,
CRAs,
Delegation,
investigator site,
monitering,
PI Oversight,
qualifications,
site inspection,
training
Monday, January 15, 2018
Study Sites: Show 'Em Your QC!
Sites frequently want to know how they can stand out to Sponsors and CROs to win more studies.
Our advice: Implement internal QC procedures.
Sponsors and CROs we work with consider a tight quality control program to be evidence that a site can be counted on to produce reliable data. It shows that managing quality at your site is a continual process, and doesn’t wait for monitors to arrive. In a risk-based monitoring environment, this is an increasingly compelling attribute.
Where to Start: The Usual Suspects
It makes sense for you to focus your QC efforts on those areas where you’ve historically had the most problems. If the phrase “trend analysis” makes you want to jump through a window -- it's okay -- you can climb back inside. You don't have to do a trend analysis. We've identified 3 areas in which audit findings are common and how you can avoid them.
Our advice: Implement internal QC procedures.
Sponsors and CROs we work with consider a tight quality control program to be evidence that a site can be counted on to produce reliable data. It shows that managing quality at your site is a continual process, and doesn’t wait for monitors to arrive. In a risk-based monitoring environment, this is an increasingly compelling attribute.
Where to Start: The Usual Suspects
It makes sense for you to focus your QC efforts on those areas where you’ve historically had the most problems. If the phrase “trend analysis” makes you want to jump through a window -- it's okay -- you can climb back inside. You don't have to do a trend analysis. We've identified 3 areas in which audit findings are common and how you can avoid them.
Labels:
AEs,
ConMeds,
drug accountability,
essential documents,
QC program,
research sites,
study sites,
win studies
Sunday, November 12, 2017
Love at First "Site": Early Signs of Strong PI Oversight
When I was a teenager, my grandfather would invite my new boyfriends to run short, pointless errands with him, just so he could watch them drive. He said he could tell a lot about a boy’s character simply by observing his actions behind the wheel. Did he stay under the speed limit? Did he use his signal when he was switching lanes? Did he slow down when children were playing near the road? If so, it was a good sign that the boy was generally a careful and attentive fellow. If not, it was an early indication of reckless tendencies, and I would do well to be on my guard.
What does this have to do with PI oversight?
What does this have to do with PI oversight?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




