Cargando…

Activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach

BACKGROUND: The administrative process associated with clinical trial activation has been criticized as costly, complex, and time-consuming. Prior research has concentrated on identifying administrative barriers and proposing various solutions to reduce activation time, and consequently associated c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martinez, Diego A., Tsalatsanis, Athanasios, Yalcin, Ali, Zayas-Castro, José L., Djulbegovic, Benjamin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4765218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26907923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1227-2
_version_ 1782417521628938240
author Martinez, Diego A.
Tsalatsanis, Athanasios
Yalcin, Ali
Zayas-Castro, José L.
Djulbegovic, Benjamin
author_facet Martinez, Diego A.
Tsalatsanis, Athanasios
Yalcin, Ali
Zayas-Castro, José L.
Djulbegovic, Benjamin
author_sort Martinez, Diego A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The administrative process associated with clinical trial activation has been criticized as costly, complex, and time-consuming. Prior research has concentrated on identifying administrative barriers and proposing various solutions to reduce activation time, and consequently associated costs. Here, we expand on previous research by incorporating social network analysis and discrete-event simulation to support process improvement decision-making. METHODS: We searched for all operational data associated with the administrative process of activating industry-sponsored clinical trials at the Office of Clinical Research of the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. We limited the search to those trials initiated and activated between July 2011 and June 2012. We described the process using value stream mapping, studied the interactions of the various process participants using social network analysis, and modeled potential process modifications using discrete-event simulation. RESULTS: The administrative process comprised 5 sub-processes, 30 activities, 11 decision points, 5 loops, and 8 participants. The mean activation time was 76.6 days. Rate-limiting sub-processes were those of contract and budget development. Key participants during contract and budget development were the Office of Clinical Research, sponsors, and the principal investigator. Simulation results indicate that slight increments on the number of trials, arriving to the Office of Clinical Research, would increase activation time by 11 %. Also, incrementing the efficiency of contract and budget development would reduce the activation time by 28 %. Finally, better synchronization between contract and budget development would reduce time spent on batching documentation; however, no improvements would be attained in total activation time. CONCLUSION: The presented process improvement analytic framework not only identifies administrative barriers, but also helps to devise and evaluate potential improvement scenarios. The strength of our framework lies in its system analysis approach that recognizes the stochastic duration of the activation process and the interdependence between process activities and entities. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1227-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4765218
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47652182016-02-25 Activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach Martinez, Diego A. Tsalatsanis, Athanasios Yalcin, Ali Zayas-Castro, José L. Djulbegovic, Benjamin Trials Research BACKGROUND: The administrative process associated with clinical trial activation has been criticized as costly, complex, and time-consuming. Prior research has concentrated on identifying administrative barriers and proposing various solutions to reduce activation time, and consequently associated costs. Here, we expand on previous research by incorporating social network analysis and discrete-event simulation to support process improvement decision-making. METHODS: We searched for all operational data associated with the administrative process of activating industry-sponsored clinical trials at the Office of Clinical Research of the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. We limited the search to those trials initiated and activated between July 2011 and June 2012. We described the process using value stream mapping, studied the interactions of the various process participants using social network analysis, and modeled potential process modifications using discrete-event simulation. RESULTS: The administrative process comprised 5 sub-processes, 30 activities, 11 decision points, 5 loops, and 8 participants. The mean activation time was 76.6 days. Rate-limiting sub-processes were those of contract and budget development. Key participants during contract and budget development were the Office of Clinical Research, sponsors, and the principal investigator. Simulation results indicate that slight increments on the number of trials, arriving to the Office of Clinical Research, would increase activation time by 11 %. Also, incrementing the efficiency of contract and budget development would reduce the activation time by 28 %. Finally, better synchronization between contract and budget development would reduce time spent on batching documentation; however, no improvements would be attained in total activation time. CONCLUSION: The presented process improvement analytic framework not only identifies administrative barriers, but also helps to devise and evaluate potential improvement scenarios. The strength of our framework lies in its system analysis approach that recognizes the stochastic duration of the activation process and the interdependence between process activities and entities. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1227-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4765218/ /pubmed/26907923 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1227-2 Text en © Martinez et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Martinez, Diego A.
Tsalatsanis, Athanasios
Yalcin, Ali
Zayas-Castro, José L.
Djulbegovic, Benjamin
Activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach
title Activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach
title_full Activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach
title_fullStr Activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach
title_full_unstemmed Activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach
title_short Activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach
title_sort activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4765218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26907923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1227-2
work_keys_str_mv AT martinezdiegoa activatingclinicaltrialsaprocessimprovementapproach
AT tsalatsanisathanasios activatingclinicaltrialsaprocessimprovementapproach
AT yalcinali activatingclinicaltrialsaprocessimprovementapproach
AT zayascastrojosel activatingclinicaltrialsaprocessimprovementapproach
AT djulbegovicbenjamin activatingclinicaltrialsaprocessimprovementapproach