Close

Academic Medical Center System Infrastructure Trends and Related Challenges for Conducting Clinical Trials

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Improving Therapeutic Development with Female Clinical Endpoints

The pharmaceutical industry faces growing pressure to refine how...
- Advertisement -

Though academic medical centers (AMCs) may differ widely—public vs private, city vs rural, and system infrastructure and resource variations—they generally share the same tripartite mission: research, medical education, and patient care. Yet, increasingly, complex clinical research systems and processes present common challenges to all of these prestigious institutions, regardless of their differences, that can weigh heavily on research staff.

Here are some of the most impactful trends and challenges for academic medical centers.

Complex Regulatory Requirements and Workload Demands on Study Coordinators

One of the biggest challenges among academic sites is keeping up with the internal AMC clinical trial paperwork and external regulatory documentation required of study coordinators. Much of this workload is literally managing paper records and information that is required to be hardcopy originals, manually-filed, and stored in an accessible, local location (nothing digital). This task is increasingly complicated because the paperwork documentation requirements and protocol Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) from sponsor-to-sponsor are study-specific and variable. This requires extensive protocol and SOP training and careful adherence by study coordinators to each unique protocol.

Once all the study-specific training is completed and a new study is initiated, study coordinators are immediately faced with the pressures of recuiting partipants (to remain a viable site) and ensure the study remains within budget and on time (the clock is ticking).

If the above tasks of managing the study are being effectively completed on time, another administrative challenge for study coordinators is preparing for and passing a sponsor or FDA regulatory audit. This is essentially a “detailed paperwork” review of all study regulatory documentation and tasks completed by the site to ensure the study team is following the protocol precisely and all study actions are in full regulatory compliance (human subjects assurance, billing, adverse event reporting, etc). External audits can be stressful for study coordinators and time consuming.

Study Coordinator Retention and Turnover Challenges

Although the alruisitic rewards of conducting clinical research are significant, clinical trial study coordinators have a very demanding job. In academia, after completing the rigorous GCP and regulatory training, and then gaining experience managing all aspects of various trial protocols, retaining these professionals long-term as part of a skilled and experienced clinical trial workforce is a continuous challenge within Departments and AMCs. There is a high rate of burnout or simply a desire for many coordinators to seek a new work environment that has less pressure.

The problem, therefore, is the cost of turnover. This includes not just the sunk cost of all the detailed training provided to the coordinator, but the additional cost of training a new coordinator and losing institutional knowledge.

Continuous Competing Priorities for IT Systems, Clinical and Research Information Systems

Another way AMCs are challenged is simply through their size as a large, diverse, and complex healthcare system. The health system carries the complexities of the information management systems: electronic medical research (EMR), clinical trial management systems (CTMS), billing systems, as well as many other information systems. The institutional pressures and priority to maintain and enhance these systems is constant, expensive, and highly competitive for scarce funds.

With large clinical care and research IT systems, there is always an extensive implementation period that is followed by extensive training of staff (i.e., learning curve) and a significant, ongoing cost to maintain the entire IT entrerprise. Many IT system upgrades are, unfortunately, non-negotiable, but they are necessary. AMCs desperately need new systems to keep up with rapidly advancing technology in order to maintain their insititutional mission of research, education, and patient care.

Increased Patient Throughput Productivity

Many faculty are wearing two or more academic hats. Besides conducting research, many are providing patient care and/or teaching medical students and residents. The demands on time and pressure for clinical care productivity on these faculty are significant. The recent trend is these demands are increasing and becoming ubiquitous across AMCs.

The way AMC faculty salaries are structured, clinical productivity for most faculty comes first, teaching and conducting research usually come second (after monthly clinical patient volumes are being met). Said another way, if clinical care time needs to be increased to meet the contractual targets, there is less time for clincal research. Further, in the era of digital patient record documentation and increasingly complex, billing and insurance reimbursement requirements, the time to manage each patient care encounter has increased significantly. Some faculty are completing this required documentation work at home, after hours, in what’s referred to as “pajama time.”

Forging a Path Forward: Sharing New Ways to Improve Research

Recognizing the trends and common challenges AMCs face in clinical research present opportunities to be constantly looking for future improvements.

Sharing best practices among academic colleagues across the country is one way to uncover new ways to become more efficient and solve problems. Keeping pace, by implementing new technologies that can reduce clinical research administrative burden is part of that equation.

Joe Gough has over 27 years of experience in clinical trials management and implementation of best practices.  Prior to joining Greenphire as a Solutions Specialist in 2019, Joe worked for the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Cooperative Studies Program and the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), Department of Medicine. He can be reached at joe.gough@greenphire.com.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Improving Therapeutic Development with Female Clinical Endpoints

The pharmaceutical industry faces growing pressure to refine how...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »