Where Clinical Research Really Happens: The Investigator–Patient Visit

Clinical research programs span a massive array of contributing institutions, professionals, types of work, phases of activity, and research venues. Among this head-spinning constellation, it’s not possible to single-out the one place where clinical research “happens.” However, if we were to assign a single nexus of the most profound moment in the clinical research continuum, there is an obvious answer: Clinical research happens when the investigator engages with the patient during a clinical visit.

This is the moment when a physical exam is conducted, when patient-reported outcomes are verified, bio-samples are taken, bio-measurements performed, structured questions asked, subjective scales administered, and medical imaging captured. It is the moment when the research professional gathers the key data on the safety and efficacy of the study drug, or, unknowingly, of the placebo. Those data are the core elements that, in the cumulative, form the very foundation of innovation in medical science.

That said, the investigator-patient visit is much more than an exercise in data collection. It’s when the two parties act as humans, not as scientists and subjects. It’s when the clinician is accountable to overseeing the safety of a human volunteer taking an experimental drug. It’s when the caregiver engages with the patient and solicits an understanding of their overall health. It’s when an altruistic person, one who has surrendered their body to science, exercises their right to ask questions, to be listened to and be taken seriously, and to be treated with the highest ethical standards of respect and protection of their health.

The investigator-patient visit is not even just a meeting between two people, but is also the point of convergence among innumerable other factors in clinical research. It’s when the training of investigators and staff is applied, when myriad documents and processes and eClinical systems are made actionable, when choices of study design, subject selection and critical endpoints become animated and enduring.

The levels of nuance and varied dynamics of the investigator-patient encounter are both profound and sublime. There are so many important exchanges, so many words spoken, decisions made, and activities conducted. And of course, there are just as many points where errors can be made, key points omitted, and misunderstandings arise.

All of this is not to belittle the importance of so many others in the world of clinical research. Pharmacovigilance, data analysis, regulatory affairs, and countless other professions are all essential and invaluable. A global army of millions from drug developers, CROs, healthcare providers, academia, governments and more work every day to make possible the stunning advancements in health that benefit humankind. But with a measure of humility, we all should recognize that in one sense, everything we do is either in anticipation of, or directly a consequence from, that moment when the investigator and patient engage in a clinical visit.

The supremacy of that moment is hard to overstate, and the criticality of getting everything right during this brief engagement is unrivaled by any other component of clinical research. It truly is “where clinical research happens.”

About MedPoint Digital, Inc.

MedPoint Digital, Inc. partners with biopharma companies to deploy virtual pharmaceutical meetings and advanced portals that produce unique value. Our goals are to lower costs, improve quality and expedite timelines with digital platforms that transform key areas of clinical operations, commercial objectives, and study site tasks.

by Christina Clewlow

Creating a Site-Centric Culture: The Key to Stronger Clinical Trial Partnerships

Global drug developers and investigators sites both recognize the value of being a good partner with the other party, but tensions are frequent in relationships between sponsors and sites. In forums at industry conferences to discuss sponsor-site relationships, these tensions are brought into the daylight, and it’s easy to discern that complaints about the relationship overwhelmingly come from the investigator sites, whereas study sponsors seem mostly complacent. In the author’s experience, sponsors often express words of encouragement and support for improving relationships, but this usually falls short of critical self-evaluation.

To understand how study sponsors and investigator sites can work together better, it’s important to recognize the dynamic of the relationship. Simply put, sponsors are in the lead position and investigator sites are in the reliant position for almost all aspects of the relationship. And as the lead party in the relationship, it befalls sponsors to take responsibility for ensuring that the relationship is healthy and mutually beneficial.

Think about it: sponsors design the drug development program, define every aspect of individual study protocols, provide necessary funding to study sites, conduct extensive oversight of study sites, deploy almost all the technology platforms used in the study, often stipulate a central IRB, and own the data resulting from the trial. Sponsors also put forth the clinical trial agreement and site budget, and although negotiation is involved, sponsors ultimately decide which sites they prefer to work with.

In these ways and others, sponsors have the upper hand in the most meaningful elements of the sponsor-site relationship. The power dynamic is partially moderated after a site is selected and activated, because the sponsor then becomes reliant on the site to enroll adequate numbers of patients. Also, some principal investigators may be influential leaders in their field of medicine, adding some clout to their relationship with sponsors. But these considerations only marginally counterbalance the position sponsors hold as the lead partner.

With great power, as they say, comes great responsibility. Sponsors rightfully have the greater burden to create the basis for a positive relationship, and to foster that relationship over the lifetime of each study. Doing so is clearly a win-win for both sponsors and sites, so sponsors have every reason to do better. So why exactly don’t sponsors more effectively take the lead in ensuring better relationships with sites?

The answer is NOT that sponsors don’t appreciate what the issues are, or that they lack an understanding of the actions required to do better. Numerous surveys over the years have consistently enumerated the aspects of clinical trials that matter to sites, as well as the widespread perception that sponsors need to do things differently and better. For instance, the issue of “getting paid fairly and on-time” has been one of the top complaints of study sites in every survey for the last two decades. And for reference, the checklist at the end of this article is shown exactly as it was generated from Microsoft Copilot AI, and it provides a fair and accurate overview of areas where sponsors can do a better job of supporting sites. So as far as solutions go, sponsors need to do little more than look it up.

If the answers are so obvious, then why don’t sponsors do a better job partnering with investigator sites? The disconnect appears to stem from a series of organizational issues, or as management consultants like to say, “Culture trumps everything.”

Sponsor perspective.

Understandably, sponsors tend to design clinical trials to meet the priorities of sponsors, not investigator sites. In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on designing patient-centric protocols that incorporate patient-listening and other tactics intended to help design trials around the needs of study subjects. If only the same were true for investigator sites. Some sponsors do expose study protocols to advisory boards that include investigators, but often the review is at a scientific level that does not reach down into the practical logistics of each study. By the time the protocol is reviewed for comment at an investigator meeting, the details of the protocol are generally locked in. Clearly, there’s an opportunity for sponsors to gain more meaningful input from investigator sites while the operational protocol is still in development.

Keep Listening.

Sponsors need to benefit from input by investigators at the critical phase of study design, but it doesn’t end there. Sponsors also need to actively solicit feedback from sites during the initial phase of study roll-out, and sustain site-listening activities throughout the life of the study. For instance, sites are the first to sense if there are critical issues regarding patient screening and enrollment eligibility, and sponsors should not only pay close attention, but be open to amending eligibility criteria based on “early warning” feedback from sites – it might just save the study. Other little-used listening tactics include site polling, discussion groups and social media formats.

Competing priorities.

Invariably, study teams comprise busy people who have multiple competing responsibilities. The period leading up to the launch of a new clinical trial is a time of peak activity, causing study teams to focus on the highest priorities, that is, those core activities that are absolutely required to achieve a study launch. As well-intentioned as study team members may be, competing priorities cause them to miss opportunities to implement tactics that better support sites. This includes items as common sense as developing better, more engaging study training materials, or implementing an information access hub for sites. Another barrier is that many of these tactics require a budget, and even a small budget can be an impediment for anything perceived as a second-tier priority. Also, inattention to investigator sites can be happen simply because, within a study team, no one person has the assignment of providing better site support.

Leadership.

The involvement of leadership is necessary to address many of the issues and actions outlined in Chart 1, so support from senior leadership in clinical operations is essential to optimize the working relationship between sponsors and sites. Leadership has to reinforce this as a priority and generally foster a mindset of being “site-centric,” that is, fully committed to excellence in services supporting study sites. To make this actionable, a site-centric program needs to be translated into a series of best practice SOPs, defined projects, and approved budgets. Lastly, a group of empowered individuals within clinical operations need to be tasked with implementing a program to improve working relationships with investigator sites.

The challenges and solutions to improving the sponsor-site relationship are well known, but to effect real change, the leadership, priorities, and actions outlined above are needed. Fortunately, a strong site-centric culture is a certain path to clinical trials that work better and bring success to both sides of the all-important sponsor-site partnership.

Appendix 1. Microsoft Copilot AI response to: What factors are most important to investigator sites in working effectively with clinical trial sponsors?

Clear and Feasible Protocols

Protocols that are scientifically sound and operationally realistic.
Minimal burden on site staff and patients.
Flexibility in visit windows and procedures when possible.

Transparent and Timely Communication

Regular updates and responsiveness from sponsor or CRO teams.
Clear guidance on expectations, timelines, and changes.
Collaborative approach to problem-solving.

Efficient Study Startup

Streamlined contracting and budgeting processes.
Support with IRB submissions and regulatory documentation.
Realistic timelines and proactive planning.

Fair Compensation and Reliable Payments

Budgets that reflect actual effort, overhead, and pass-through costs.
Timely payments with simple invoicing procedures.
Financial transparency and flexibility.

Recruitment and Retention Support

Tools and resources to help sites find and keep patients (e.g., advertising, concierge services).
Realistic enrollment targets and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Sponsor-provided materials and platforms for outreach.

Respect for Site Expertise and Autonomy

Involving investigators in protocol development or advisory boards.
Trusting sites to manage their workflow and patient relationships.
Avoiding micromanagement or excessive monitoring.

Strong Relationship and Reputation

Sponsors with a history of ethical conduct and scientific rigor.
Positive past experiences and long-term partnerships.
Recognition of site contributions and performance.

Operational Support and Training

Access to technology platforms (e.g., EDC, eConsent, CTMS) with proper training.
Clear SOPs and guidance documents.
Responsive helpdesk or CRA support.

About MedPoint Digital, Inc.

by Christina Clewlow

Winning the Competition for Patients

Leading pharmaceutical companies are expending more resources than ever to identify study subjects and to select investigator sites that have superior access to patients for their clinical trials. But even if a sponsor does an effective job of identifying high-potential patients and study sites, they are faced with another major hurdle: having the study site assign eligible patients to their trial and not a competing trial at the site.

The competition for patients at the site level is very real, and further, sponsors also compete for limited staff and resources at study sites. Successfully competing within sites can make the difference between success and failure in patient enrollment, and there are many actions sponsors can and should take to win that competition.

Prepare the study team well.

Study sites are more likely to enroll patients into a trial when they feel confident and ready to commence trial activities. This is in large part a product of how well a sponsor trains the various role players at each site. Every study and its profile of sites is different, and studies are generally becoming more complex. Despite this, few studies benefit from an individualized and comprehensive training plan.

Instead, most sponsors still take a “check the box” approach to site training, in which they complete training as quickly as possible to meet minimal training standards. Typically, little training is performed beyond a front-loaded "data dump" of training that violates numerous well-established rules of Adult Learning 101. The list of best practices a sponsor can apply to better prepare sites is too long for this article, but they are well known and proven to improve performance.

Rapid answers for study professionals.

Clinical trials are inherently challenging, and sites routinely have questions about how to best conduct study procedures. Typically, sites direct questions to CRAs, who respond within 24 hours and sometimes longer. The problem with this approach is that when a site member has a question, they almost always need the answer right away, so they can complete the task at hand.

A better solution is to provide sites with fast, easy access to the information they need. This should take the form of an information access platform that consolidates the most relevant and updated documents and information on a web-based platform that’s conducive to quick searches. This is not to be confused with an eRegulatory binder or an eTMF platform, and unfortunately, few sponsors deploy a true information access platform.

As Artificial Intelligence becomes mainstream, it’s possible to deploy an AI platform that is specially built to provide fast, accurate answers to study-specific questions. There are many provisions that must be built into this solution so that accuracy is closely monitored and strictly reinforced. Also, the possibility of “AI hallucinations” and other creeping dysfunctions must clearly be eliminated from any AI solution. But the potential of providing study sites with immediate answers has tremendous value, and as AI technology rapidly evolves into a reliable tool, the time has arrived to deploy an AI solution.

Empower sites via technology.

The history of eClinical technology had been double-edged, with many platforms adding to site burden rather than reducing it. Clearly, the challenge is to provide sites with digital tools that are intuitive and easy, while still harnessing the many advantages of information technology.

Unfortunately, too many eClinical platforms are designed to meet the needs of sponsors, with much less thought given to sites. Many platforms are powerful, versatile and massively functional, but they are also dense and complex, requiring hours of training just to use. This has resulted in frustration and resistance among site users.

A better approach is to deploy eClinical platforms designed to meet the needs of sites. A “site-first” approach means every platform should make work faster, easier and more productive for sites, with a zero-training design goal. If this can be done, improvements in work quality and data capture are practically guaranteed given the nature of digital platforms.

There are many opportunities to innovate even further in the use of eClinical platforms, but too often such innovation adds to trial complexity, whereas the over-riding goal should be to streamline workflows and lower the burden placed on sites. Site-first eClinical platforms, as friendly as they are powerful, are an important win-win in the competition for site preference and patient enrollment.

Motivation is foundational.

Study sites are comprised of people, not machines, and it’s critical to win their hearts as well as their minds. Sponsors must appeal to the scientific curiosity of medical professionals and stress the altruistic human health mission of each trial. Sponsors also need to continually impress sites with their commitment to deploying reasonable study designs, to providing the resources necessary for sites to succeed, and to feedback mechanisms that make it clear that sponsors listen to sites.

It stands to reason that sites will develop a strong preference for sponsors who understand the challenges that sites face, and who demonstrate that they are a committed partner. Through effective communications and practical support, sponsors can become preferred partners, and this is a sure path to winning the competition for patients.

About MedPoint Digital, Inc.

by Christina Clewlow

Transforming Clinical Research Processes with RASPberry AI

In the ever-evolving landscape of clinical research, the efficiency of Clinical Research Associates (CRAs) is paramount. Enter RASPberry AI technology — a game changer poised to enhance the effectiveness of CRAs and study sites alike.

RASPberry AI offers a state-of-the-art, 24/7 resource that equips study sites with fast and accurate answers to their queries. This ensures that challenges are addressed promptly, allowing sites to optimize their performance and focus on their core responsibilities. With RASPberry AI, the burden of answering repetitive and time-consuming questions is lifted from CRAs, enabling them to dedicate more time for strategic oversight and monitoring of their projects.

By integrating RASPberry AI into your clinical research operations, you not only streamline the workflow but also enhance the quality of data collection and analysis. This results in quicker decision-making processes and ultimately accelerates the path to groundbreaking discoveries.

Investing in RASPberry AI technology is not just about keeping pace with industry standards; it’s about leading the charge towards more efficient, data-driven research practices. The future of clinical research is here, and with RASPberry AI, your team can stay ahead of the curve.

Ready to revolutionize your clinical trials? Learn more about how RASPberry AI can empower your study sites and support your CRAs in achieving unparalleled success.

For more information, contact us today. Together, let's make clinical research smarter, faster, and more efficient.

About MedPoint Digital, Inc.

by Christina Clewlow

Relieve your CRAs of the Site Training Burden

CRAs are tasked with an ever-increasing number of tasks and responsibilities to ensure that trials are running smoothly. One of the most time-consuming of these tasks is training study site personnel. While CRAs need to play an important role in ensuring sites are properly trained, they are often tasked to do so in costly and ineffective ways.

Some sponsors have CRAs deliver training by flipping through decks with hundreds of slides, often borrowed from an investigator meeting. Not only is this a subpar way to train, but it’s a questionable use of highly skilled and expensive professionals such as CRAs.

Note that CRAs are not hired based their training ability, but rather on their acumen and experience over a demanding array of technical matters related to clinical trials. As a result, some CRAs are innately good trainers, while others are not. Also, CRAs are no match for the subject matter experts who typically deliver training presentations at investigator meetings.

A preferable approach is to provide sites with an online training platform with all relevant modules. The role of CRAs would be to direct site members to complete training modules prior to a site initiation visit or interim visit.

Once at the site, the CRA should meet with investigators and site staff, and reinforce the most important learning objectives of the training modules. The CRA should also solicit any questions on the training material that site members may have, and confirm that site members understand the training content and are prepared to commence the study. This approach gives the CRAs an important role in training without bogging them down for hours of reviewing slide decks. It also improves overall quality and consistency of training for site members.

The approach outlined above, combining a strong CRA role with online training modules, is a core best practice. It uses a fraction of the CRA’s valuable time, leverages the authority of subject matter experts, provides site members with more flexibility in when to spend several hours training, and gives the CRAs an important role in quality control and training reinforcement. It is superior to “flipping through slides” in every way.

Reduce CRA burnout and optimize your study site training with TriPort Investigator Portal. For more information, contact us today.  

About MedPoint Digital, Inc.

by Christina Clewlow

Revolutionizing Drug Safety Report Distribution with TriPort Trial Portal: A Seamless Approach

In the fast-paced world of clinical trials, effective drug safety reporting is paramount. However, navigating the complex landscape of safety reports has long been a tedious and overwhelming task, often burdening study teams and pharmacovigilance departments as well as principal investigators.

MedPoint is pleased to announce the latest release of our Safety Reports distribution platform on TriPort which is poised to transform pharmacovigilance safety reporting into a seamless, efficient, and intelligent process.

Safety Reports on TriPort is more than just another document platform—it’s a transformative tool that redefines how drug safety reporting is approached. This innovative platform addresses the complexities of safety letter distribution and acknowledgment of these reports with an emphasis on simplicity, versatility, and security.

The primary objective is to simplify this intricate process. With a user-centric approach, the platform empowers study teams, CRAs, and investigators to handle a wide array of safety report tasks swiftly and intuitively. No longer will these professionals be bogged down by convoluted procedures; TriPort streamlines the process, making it more accessible and manageable.

By employing automated rule-based distribution, the platform complies with country-specific regulations and optimally matches the characteristics of individual safety reports. This eliminates unnecessary reporting burdens and ensures that the right information reaches the right stakeholders.

Safety Reports on TriPort is designed with the flexibility to seamlessly accommodate distribution of safety reports to a single-study or across a multi-study development program. This approach affords investigators the efficiency of a one-time eSignature completion to acknowledge receipt of safety letters across all relevant studies.

TriPort’s standout feature is its versatility. The platform caters to a wide array of safety report tasks, including:

Initial and Follow-up Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reactions (SUSARs)
New Safety Findings
Semi-Annual Safety Reports (SASR)
Other Safety Reports (as required)

Of course, TriPort isn’t just about drug safety reporting; it’s a comprehensive platform. With Single Sign-On functionality, users gain access to a centralized hub that offers training, study documents, FAQs, patient visit guides, searchable protocols, site engagement tools, and more—and now, an easy and compliant way to distribute safety reports.

Safety Reports on TriPort is a breakthrough in drug safety reporting technology. Its seamless approach simplifies processes, enhances collaboration, and provides meaningful insights, all while adhering to regulatory standards. As the pharmaceutical industry continues to evolve digitally, platforms like TriPort play a pivotal role in ensuring patient safety and efficient operations.

Embrace the future of drug safety report distribution with Safety Reports on TriPort and experience a new era of streamlined, intelligent, and secure reporting workflows. For more information, contact us today.

About MedPoint Digital, Inc.

by Christina Clewlow

Decentralized Clinical Trials and Virtual Pharmaceutical Meetings

The pharmaceutical industry is continuing to evaluate and evolve the strategies and tools utilized to conduct Decentralized Clinical Trials (DCT). These strategies have understandably focused primarily on tools to connect patients to study sites; however, an often overlooked DCT tactic involves leveraging pharmaceutical virtual meeting technology to effectively connect CRAs and sites with virtual monitoring visits.

Why should DCT be pursued?

The COVID-driven boom in Decentralized Clinical Trials (DCT) leveled off in 2023, as initial experiences are being assessed across the pharmaceutical industry. As we review DCT post-COVID, perhaps the first issue to re-visit is; why should DCT be pursued. Merits of DCT include patient-centricity and sustainability, as well as introducing new ways to collect patient health data. However, the most compelling merit of DCT is the potential to expand the population of patients who can participate. After all, patient recruitment remains the most important and elusive challenge in clinical trials. This is especially true if one defines DCT as “enabling patients to participate without traveling to the study site as often.” The simple math is that, if the distance of potential patients from the study site is doubled, the geographic area is quadrupled, as in Patient Area = Distance². Hence, if the distance increases by three, then the geographic area increases by nine, etc.

However, geographic coverage can be expanded simply by increasing the number of study sites. So why DCT? Because adding study sites is very expensive. Each site requires contracting, start-up, ethical review, staffing, training, monitoring, supplies, shipping, eClinical systems, etc. If a study can be performed by 20 sites instead of 80, savings for the overall study budget can be 15% to 20% or more. Given the continuing spiral of costs of clinical trials, cost savings of this magnitude trump all other considerations.

Concerns with DCT

In theory, DCT can be a cost game-changer, but questions remain. Are patients ready to participate virtually, without meeting regularly with investigators? And likewise, are investigators ready? Are there new risks or compromises stemming from DCT? Are patients less invested and more likely to discontinue over a multi-year trial? These concerns and others are legitimate issues of DCT that drug developers must explore.

Perhaps the key question is, does DCT really lower costs? Most DCT tactics involve additional technologies and services, adding yet more complexity to trials. The increased costs of these DCT elements must be offset by enough additional patients per site, resulting in sufficiently fewer sites, to generate overall cost savings. If not, DCT will fail to deliver on its cost-saving promise, undermining its core rationale.

Rational Assessment

Today the majority of pharmaceutical developers are selectively using elements of DCT in hybrid trials, as opposed to going all-in on 100% virtual trials. This allows trial sponsors to assess the practicality and performance of individual DCT tactics. It’s an exciting period, and time will tell which tactics demonstrate value.

An overlooked area of opportunity in DCT is virtual site monitoring visits. At MedPoint Digital, we refer to this as “virtual monitoring” because the emphasis is on live virtual visits by CRAs with study sites. This differs from “remote monitoring” which usually refers to 24/7 analysis of data flowing from the site to the monitor. MedPoint Digital pioneered live virtual meetings for the pharma industry and today we deploy an advanced platform that outperforms standard Zoom or Microsoft Teams. Our virtual monitoring platform, InSite Virtual®, features enhanced collaboration tools such as forms, checklists, eSignatures, document mark-up, etc., as well as validated data capture and automated site visit reports. This superior platform for live virtual pharmaceutical meetings is specifically configured to support CRA site visits and offers major advantages in cost savings, quality, and productivity.

DCT has turned the corner from a COVID-inspired boom to a phase of rational assessment and sensible deployment. Virtual pharmaceutical meetings, whether for patients, CRAs, or others, have tremendous potential for DCT, but only if they deliver productive, personal experiences that preserve trial quality and data integrity.

To learn more about MedPoint Digital’s virtual meeting platform, Elevation, or our virtual site monitoring platform, InSite Virtual, contact us today!

About MedPoint Digital, Inc.

by Christina Clewlow

The Necessity of a Virtual Attendance Option for Pharmaceutical Industry Meetings

The pharmaceutical industry continues to adapt to the evolving nature of virtual meetings and remote work that has skyrocketed over recent years. During the COVID-19 pandemic, pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers were forced to rapidly adopt virtual meeting technology. However, with travel returning to pre-pandemic levels, pharmaceutical companies are now tasked with finding the optimal balance between travel-to meetings and virtual meetings.

A number of important considerations can factor into these decisions including cost, audience size, meeting objectives, and the geographic location of attendees; however, perhaps the most commonly overlooked consideration is attendee preference. According to an Accenture survey of Healthcare Providers (HCPs), 38% prefer all meetings to be virtual while only 12% prefer in-person meetings only. Perhaps unsurprisingly, 46% prefer a mix of in-person and virtual.

While it’s clear that HCPs have a preference for virtual and hybrid options, the industry has continued to slowly migrate back to offering travel-to meetings. There are benefits to the in-person interactions that travel-to meetings can facilitate; however, the risk of eliminating key segments of your audience that are unable or unwilling to dedicate the time required to attend travel-to meetings is too significant to overlook. Hosting a critical Virtual Investigator Meeting, a high-profile Virtual Advisory Board, or a Virtual Speaker Training event without a subset of your most important Principal Investigators, KOL advisors, or speakers, decreases the value of your event and creates a myriad of ripple effects for your team.

The simple solution that many organizations are deploying for this problem is to simply offer a generic virtual attendance option to invitees only after they have indicated that they cannot attend in person. These attendees are sent a last-minute Zoom or Teams link to view the in-person meeting remotely. They are rarely enabled to meaningfully participate in the discussion and this experience can often be more frustrating than rewarding for high profile HCPs.

Pharmaceutical companies need to take a more strategic approach to this challenge. Knowing that a significant portion of your audience has a preference to attend virtually, all high-profile travel-to meetings for HCPs should include a virtual component from the beginning of the planning process. Teams should engage with an experienced virtual meeting provider that will ensure your virtual attendees have a seamless, engaging, and rewarding meeting experience.

Please reach out to MedPoint Digital today to learn how our team of experienced, dedicated virtual meeting experts can elevate your next virtual pharmaceutical meeting.

About MedPoint Digital, Inc.

by Christina Clewlow

Four Tips to Engage Sites During Virtual Investigator Meetings

As clinical trials and training of sites become increasingly reliant on virtual technology, pharmaceutical sponsors need to understand the unique challenges and opportunities that come with conducting meetings online. By applying principles of adult learning, sponsors can ensure that virtual investigator meetings are effective and engaging for all participants.

1. Wealth of experience

First, it is essential to recognize that adult learners have a wealth of experience and knowledge that they can bring to the virtual meeting space. Creating a collaborative environment that encourages participation from all members, investigators, sponsors, and vendors, can allow for collective expertise and foster a sense of community among the group.

2. Provide learners with a purpose and objective

Another key principle of adult learning is the importance of providing learners with a clear purpose and objective for the meeting. This can help focus the discussion and ensure that all participants work towards a common goal. In the context of clinical trials, this might involve setting specific data collection targets or outlining key protocol questions that need to be addressed during the meeting.

3. Relevant materials

Adult learners are also more engaged when the material presented is relevant and applicable to their work. In virtual investigator meetings, this can be achieved by providing real-world examples and case studies that demonstrate how the concepts being discussed can be applied in practice. This can help to make the material more meaningful and engaging for participants.

4. Different learning styles

Finally, it is important to recognize that adult learners have different learning styles and preferences. Some may prefer to learn through visual aids, while others may respond better to hands-on activities such as gamification or group discussions. By providing a variety of learning approaches and allowing participants to choose the methods that work best for them, investigators can ensure that virtual meetings are inclusive and accessible for all.

In conclusion, by applying principles of adult learning in virtual investigator meetings, clinical trial teams can create an engaging and effective learning environment that supports the success of their trials. By fostering collaboration, setting clear goals, making the material relevant, and providing diverse learning opportunities, investigators can ensure that virtual pharmaceutical meetings are a valuable tool for advancing the field of clinical research.

To learn more about MedPoint Digital’s virtual investigator meeting platform, Elevation, contact us today!

About MedPoint Digital, Inc.

by Christina Clewlow

Launching a Strategic Virtual Advisory Board Partnership with a Leading Medical Communications Agency

Situation:

In 2022, a large Medical Communications agency (MedComm A) approached MedPoint Digital (MedPoint) to assist in executing all virtual advisory board meetings across their agency. MedComm A’s core competencies include scientific strategy, content development, market access, and meeting planning services; however, their account and project management teams were increasingly being tasked with planning and executing virtual advisory board meetings for their clients. While MedComm A had a team of capable project managers, they lacked the technological infrastructure and operational expertise to effectively produce a high volume of virtual advisory board meetings.

Solution:

MedPoint provided MedComm A with a full overview of technical capabilities and best practices in order to create specific work instructions for each end client based on organizational compliance policies and individual team preferences. MedPoint then aligned dedicated project management teams with each agency account team and end client. This allowed MedComm A to have consistent staffing for all their clients and brands, creating a seamless planning experience and the ability to turn around virtual meeting requests in an expedited manner.

Having consistent communication and alignment between MedPoint and MedComm A teams allowed close working relationships that resulted in superior service and unified project support for each virtual advisory board meeting. Weekly planning calls across teams allowed for continuity throughout the planning process, operational efficiencies between organizations, and seamless, high quality virtual advisory board events.

Results:

With dedicated staffing teams, upfront planning, and constant communication, MedPoint was able to execute over 100 successful virtual advisory board meetings for MedComm A in less than a year using our virtual meeting platform, Elevation™. Not only were the virtual meetings executed to the highest standard, but large cost savings were generated based on the volume of meetings. With MedPoint taking ownership of all technical aspects of the virtual meeting planning process and execution, MedComm A was able to focus on their strategic and scientific core competencies and deliver better value for their clients.

Contact us to learn more about MedPoint Digital’s virtual meeting platform, Elevation, and all the services that come with it.

About MedPoint Digital, Inc.

by Christina Clewlow