OBJECTIVE: Good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines emphasize trial site monitoring, although the implementation is unspecified and evidence for benefit is sparse. We aimed to develop a site monitoring process using peer reviewers to improve staff training, site performance, data collection, and GCP compliance. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) team observed and gave feedback on trial recruitment and follow-up appointments, held staff meetings, and examined documentation during annual 2-day site visits. The intervention was evaluated in the ProtecT trial, a UK randomized controlled trial of localized prostate cancer treatments (ISRCTN20141297). The ProtecT coordinator and senior nurses conducted three monitoring rounds at eight sites (2004-2007). The process evaluation used PRIME report findings, trial databases, resource use, and a site nurse survey. RESULTS: Adverse findings decreased across all sites from 44 in round 1 to 19 in round 3. Most findings related to protocol adherence or site organizational issues, including improvements in eligibility criteria application and data collection. Staff found site monitoring acceptable and made changes after reviews. CONCLUSION: The PRIME process used observation by peer reviewers to improve protocol adherence and train site staff, which increased trial performance and consistency.
OBJECTIVE: Good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines emphasize trial site monitoring, although the implementation is unspecified and evidence for benefit is sparse. We aimed to develop a site monitoring process using peer reviewers to improve staff training, site performance, data collection, and GCP compliance. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) team observed and gave feedback on trial recruitment and follow-up appointments, held staff meetings, and examined documentation during annual 2-day site visits. The intervention was evaluated in the ProtecT trial, a UK randomized controlled trial of localized prostate cancer treatments (ISRCTN20141297). The ProtecT coordinator and senior nurses conducted three monitoring rounds at eight sites (2004-2007). The process evaluation used PRIME report findings, trial databases, resource use, and a site nurse survey. RESULTS: Adverse findings decreased across all sites from 44 in round 1 to 19 in round 3. Most findings related to protocol adherence or site organizational issues, including improvements in eligibility criteria application and data collection. Staff found site monitoring acceptable and made changes after reviews. CONCLUSION: The PRIME process used observation by peer reviewers to improve protocol adherence and train site staff, which increased trial performance and consistency.
Authors: J L Donovan; F C Hamdy; J A Lane; D E Neal; M Mason; C Metcalfe; E Walsh; J M Blazeby; T J Peters; P Holding; S Bonnington; T Lennon; L Bradshaw; D Cooper; P Herbert; J Howson; A Jones; N Lyons; E Salter; P Thompson; S Tidball; J Blaikie; C Gray; P Bollina; J Catto; A Doble; A Doherty; D Gillatt; R Kockelbergh; H Kynaston; A Paul; P Powell; S Prescott; D J Rosario; E Rowe; M Davis; E L Turner; R M Martin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Julia Wade; Sian Noble; Kirsty Garfield; Grace Young; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Jane Blazeby; Richard Bryant; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Owen Hughes; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Edgar Paez; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek Rosario; Edward Rowe; David Neal Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Jenny L Donovan; Grace J Young; Eleanor I Walsh; Chris Metcalfe; J Athene Lane; Richard M Martin; Marta K Tazewell; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Nicola Mills; Hanan Khazragui; Tarnjit K Khera; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Catrin Tudur Smith; Deborah D Stocken; Janet Dunn; Trevor Cox; Paula Ghaneh; David Cunningham; John P Neoptolemos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Julia Wade; Peter N Holding; Susan Bonnington; Leila Rooshenas; J Athene Lane; C Elizabeth Salter; Kate Tilling; Mark J Speakman; Simon F Brewster; Simon Evans; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tracey Chantler; Phaik Yeong Cheah; George Miiro; Viriya Hantrakum; Annet Nanvubya; Elizabeth Ayuo; Esther Kivaya; Jeremiah Kidola; Pontiano Kaleebu; Michael Parker; Patricia Njuguna; Elizabeth Ashley; Philippe J Guerin; Trudie Lang Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-02-17 Impact factor: 2.692