Investigator Site Audit Performance - Applied Clinical Trials

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Search
  • Suppliers
  • Careers

Enter a company or product name

KeywordLocation
About Search
See our 2009 Buyers Guide Digital Edition.
Find Pharma Search Engine
Investigator Site Audit Performance
CQA benchmark survey finds companies use a similar method to conduct and report audits.


Applied Clinical Trials


CQA involvement in corrective action. In all companies, except one, CQA is informed about the planned corrective actions for findings requiring a response (i.e., all companies for all critical and major findings, 80% of the companies for minor findings too). In 90% of the companies the adequacy of the corrective actions is assessed by CQA. With regard to the completion of corrective actions, CQA is informed less frequently (70% for critical, 60% for major, and 40% for minor findings).

Three-quarters of the companies conduct checks/controls to find out if corrective actions were performed. However, the individual responses revealed that such checks do not occur via re-audit, but via either further routine audits, documentation review, or spot checks in case of critical findings. A formal audit closure statement is issued for 55% of the companies.


Response Time to Audit Reports
Time frame for responding. The response times vary from 5 to 60 working days (median of 20 working days, mean of 21.9 working days). A response is to be given within two weeks for 12% of the companies, within three weeks for 28%, and within four weeks for 68%. Twenty-eight percent of the companies allow for more than five weeks to respond. Four companies have no defined timelines (see Figure 4).

Trend analysis of findings

Three-quarters of the companies perform systematic trend analyses of audit findings across multiple investigator site audits. The frequency of trending varies considerably from company to company. However, about one-third evaluate data quarterly, another third annually, and the remaining companies either both or ad hoc.

Types of trend analysis. Twenty-two companies reported conducting trend analysis. The following analyses were conducted: across all audits, by study, by project, by therapeutic area, by region, by country, by phase, and by study type (eg., GP or hospital). About 80% perform analyses across all audits, and about 60% perform analyses for specific studies/projects. However, only one-third prepare an audit summary report per study that addresses the main audit findings for the study.

About 30% of the companies performing systematic trend analyses (6 out of 22) calculate an overall compliance rate across audits.

Although 25% of all companies (7 out of 28) have Quality Key Performance Indicators in place, only two of them use the overall compliance rates to calculate Quality Key Performance Indicator(s).

If trend analysis results are calculated (22 companies), about 90% use them to support process improvement, with senior management involved for most of these companies.

To put this into perspective, about 70% of all companies use trend analysis results to support process improvement.

Communication of trending results. Trending results are communicated by 90% of companies conducting trend analyses (n=22) to various functions outside of CQA. These functions are: management (18 companies), study teams (12 companies), project teams (10 companies), functions (e.g., PV) (16 companies), and investigators' meetings (4 companies).


ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Enrollment Planning for Critical Path Studies
Successful Outsourcing: Tracking Global CRO Usage
Solutions to the Discovered Challenges of Informed Consent
Training Investigators and IRB in Asia
An EMR Update
FindPharma
Survey
Would you ever consider working as a freelance clinical research professional?
Yes, I'd love to
Yes, but would never do it
No, but may have to
Absolutely not, no stability
Yes, I'd love to
75%
Yes, but would never do it
8%
No, but may have to
17%
Absolutely not, no stability
0%
View Results
Source: Applied Clinical Trials,
Click here