• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trials
    • Search Clinical Trials
    • Patient Notification System
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • JobWatch
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • iConnect
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Survey: Large sites winning more trials than small; Internet use not as widespread as thought

Survey: Large sites winning more trials than small; Internet use not as widespread as thought

March 21, 2011
CenterWatch Staff

Are large sites—hospitals, academic medical centers—getting all the trials, while smaller sites continue to fight for the work that’s left over?

That’s what results of a recent survey by Clinical Research Site Training (CRST) seem to indicate. The nearly 20-year-old site-training firm surveyed 500 U.S. sites in December 2010, finding that 66% of large sites say they have won more trials in the last three years. Smaller sites weren’t asked specifically, but anecdotally many small and medium-sized sites reported fewer trials in recent years.

“Like in all other areas in our society, there’s consolidation going on,” said Lester Levine, founder and president of Philadelphia-based CRST, which conducts a similar survey every few years. “Hospitals are merging, and sponsors are going to larger organizations to get more subjects.”

Responses came from large organizations such as Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins, hospitals including Rush Presbyterian and the Hospital for Sick Children, and multi-specialty and private practices.

Another surprising result: sites aren’t turning to the Internet as much as thought.

“Both investigators and study coordinators don’t use the Internet to get information,” said Levine. “It’s a combination of not being aware of where they might go and, even if they are, they don’t spend much time going there.”

The survey showed those at sites using the Internet to seek information are mostly coordinators, and they’re primarily using Google or other general search engines instead of seeking more targeted information such as websites of trade groups including the Association of Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) and the Society of Clinical Research Associates (SOCRA).

“I thought people would report spending a lot of time on the ACRP and SOCRA sites,” said Levine.

Almost 80% of nurses (mostly coordinators) and 60% of doctors surveyed reported using Google. About 50% of nurses and less than 40% of doctors said they used the National Institutes of Health site. Next, in terms of usage, was the ACRP site, followed by SOCRA, then CenterWatch.

Awareness was very low, too. Only a small percentage of respondents had heard of bioethics-research institutions such as the Hastings Center or news outlets such as Medpage Today, added Levine, which surprised him.

Among the findings Levine expected were that 60% of respondents reported increasing difficulty in managing trial profitability, and 40% said they were seeing increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining subjects. Specifically, respondents pointed to many more protocol amendments that require re-consenting; the amount of data from multiple vendors (diary, ECG, IVRS, remote data capture, CROs); protracted queries/resolution; and more detailed informed consents.

Eighty percent of nurses said they wanted more quality assurance training, while 60% of all respondents said they desired more training in preparing for FDA audits. This, said Levine, reflects a recent trend among smaller sites to put in place the same standard operating procedures (SOPs) as their larger brethren.

“The small and medium-sized sites have been feeling the pressure to have SOPs,” said Levine. “I wouldn’t think you’d need SOPs unless you had 10 to 15 coordinators. But now SOPs and a greater emphasis on quality are becoming expected.”

--Suz Redfearn

Upcoming Events

  • 24May

    Powering an Effective Oversight Strategy with Clinical and Operational Insights

  • 25May

    2022 WCG Avoca Quality & Innovation Summit: Own the Future

  • 28Jun

    Effective Root Cause Analysis and CAPA Investigations for the Life Sciences

  • 16Oct

    WCG MAGI's Clinical Research Hybrid Conference - 2022 West

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Protocol-360x240.png

    Avoid Deviations by Making Protocol Review a Team Effort

  • SelectionProcess-360x240.png

    Give Us a Voice: Sites Clamor for a Say on Vendor Selection

  • Convince-360x240.png

    Use Data and Details to Convince Site Leadership to Add Staff

  • AsktheExpertsBadge-360x240.png

    Ask the Experts: Listing Trial Staff and Others on the Statement of Investigator

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing