NIH has proposed requiring plain-language study results to be shared with participants in NIH-supported clinical research. The operational work starts long before the final analysis, with consent, contact management, budgeting, translation, ownership, and closeout planning.
Read more
A new Cochrane review challenges several common recruitment assumptions. The site-level lesson is not to abandon communication materials, but to stop treating them as a substitute for responsive, measurable human follow-up.
Read more
FDA’s new Expedited IND Pilot explicitly encourages IRB review and site activation to proceed alongside IND development where appropriate. The opportunity is real, but only if sponsors and sites manage changing documents, financial exposure, and first-in-human readiness through clear operational gates.
Read more
NIH is revising a proposed clinical trial application form after researchers raised questions about site readiness, multisite organization, recruitment, retention, community engagement, and inclusion. The practical lesson extends beyond grant-funded research: feasibility should be supported by operational evidence before the protocol and enrollment forecast harden.
Read more
Recent AI recruitment announcements are shifting attention toward faster patient identification. The harder operational question is whether sites can review, contact, qualify, and support those referrals without losing participants in the handoff.
Read more
Recent industry attention has focused on a frequently overlooked part of study startup: translating the protocol and supporting manuals into source documents that staff can reliably use. Here is why that work delays enrollment, creates quality risk, and deserves earlier sponsor, CRO, and site coordination.
Read more
FDA’s September 2026 draft guidance on hepatic impairment studies highlights a site-level problem that is easy to underestimate: finding patients with liver disease is not the same as enrolling participants who can be classified consistently, matched appropriately, and dosed on schedule.
Read more
FDA’s increased focus on inspectability and data integrity has an immediate operational implication: sponsors and sites must know where critical records originate, who controls them, and whether they can be reconstructed before the first participant is enrolled.
Read more
Payment delays are often treated as a finance problem. At the site level, they affect staffing, participant reimbursements, vendor readiness, study prioritization, and the administrative capacity available for trial execution. Sponsors and CROs should measure payment performance as closely as other operational indicators.
Read more
FDA’s three final oncology eligibility guidances encourage more deliberate use of performance status, laboratory thresholds, washout periods, and concomitant medication exclusions. The operational lesson is clear: broader eligibility can improve access and accrual, but only when protocols, feasibility assumptions, screening workflows, and participant support are designed together.
Read more
FDA’s latest digital health technology initiative reinforces an operational reality: remote data collection succeeds only when sponsors and sites plan for participant support, missing data, device changes, safety review, and digital access before enrollment begins.
Read more
ClinicalTrials.gov began phasing out its Classic PRS workflow in July 2026. Sponsors and CROs should use the transition to tighten record ownership, site-to-sponsor reporting, amendment reconciliation, and submission quality before the next cutoff arrives.
Read moreConnect with Wellness