Bobbi Smuck1, Phyllis Bettello, Koralee Berghout, Tracie Hanna, Brenda Kowaleski, Lynda Phippard, Diana Au, Kay Friel. 1. London Regional Cancer Program, London; Algoma District Cancer Program, Sault Ste Marie; The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa; Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario at Kingston General Hospital, Kingston; Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton; R.S. McLaughlin Durham Regional Cancer Centre, Oshawa; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Ontario Institute for Cancer Research supported the creation of a working group with the objective of developing a standard rating scale to evaluate clinical trial complexity and applying the scale to facilitate workload measurement for Ontario cancer research sites. METHODS: The lack of a mechanism to measure the workload involved in a clinical trials protocol was identified and confirmed by a literature review. To collect information on how Ontario sites were assessing workload, a survey was distributed and evaluated. As a result, the working group developed the Ontario Protocol Assessment Level (OPAL), a protocol complexity rating scale designed to capture the workload involved in a clinical trial. After a training workshop on the application, OPAL was evaluated by 17 Ontario cancer centers to demonstrate its reliability and consistency during a 3-month pilot study. RESULTS: Twenty-seven protocols were reviewed by multiple sites, and the majority of the sites reported OPAL score differences between 0 and 1.5. CONCLUSION: OPAL provides clinical trials departments with an objective method of quantifying clinical trials activity on the basis of study protocol complexity. With consistent application of OPAL, sites can manage staffing objectively. The working group is continuing to monitor the application of OPAL in Ontario.
PURPOSE: The Ontario Institute for Cancer Research supported the creation of a working group with the objective of developing a standard rating scale to evaluate clinical trial complexity and applying the scale to facilitate workload measurement for Ontario cancer research sites. METHODS: The lack of a mechanism to measure the workload involved in a clinical trials protocol was identified and confirmed by a literature review. To collect information on how Ontario sites were assessing workload, a survey was distributed and evaluated. As a result, the working group developed the Ontario Protocol Assessment Level (OPAL), a protocol complexity rating scale designed to capture the workload involved in a clinical trial. After a training workshop on the application, OPAL was evaluated by 17 Ontario cancer centers to demonstrate its reliability and consistency during a 3-month pilot study. RESULTS: Twenty-seven protocols were reviewed by multiple sites, and the majority of the sites reported OPAL score differences between 0 and 1.5. CONCLUSION: OPAL provides clinical trials departments with an objective method of quantifying clinical trials activity on the basis of study protocol complexity. With consistent application of OPAL, sites can manage staffing objectively. The working group is continuing to monitor the application of OPAL in Ontario.
Authors: Eileen P Dimond; Robin T Zon; Bryan J Weiner; Diane St Germain; Andrea M Denicoff; Kandie Dempsey; Angela C Carrigan; Randall W Teal; Marjorie J Good; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Stephen S Grubbs; Eileen P Dimond; Robin T Zon; Bryan J Weiner; Diane St Germain; Andrea M Denicoff; Kandie Dempsey; Angela C Carrigan; Randall W Teal; Marjorie J Good; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Stephen S Grubbs Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Caitlin C Murphy; Ann M Geiger; David E Gerber; John V Cox; Rasmi Nair; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kevin Wu; Eric Wu; Michael DAndrea; Nandini Chitale; Melody Lim; Marek Dabrowski; Klaudia Kantor; Hanoor Rangi; Ruishan Liu; Marius Garmhausen; Navdeep Pal; Chris Harbron; Shemra Rizzo; Ryan Copping; James Zou Journal: AAPS J Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Andrea M Denicoff; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Stephen S Grubbs; Suanna S Bruinooge; Robert L Comis; Peggy Devine; David M Dilts; Michelle E Duff; Jean G Ford; Steven Joffe; Lidia Schapira; Kevin P Weinfurt; Margo Michaels; Derek Raghavan; Ellen S Richmond; Robin Zon; Terrance L Albrecht; Michael A Bookman; Afshin Dowlati; Rebecca A Enos; Mona N Fouad; Marjorie Good; William J Hicks; Patrick J Loehrer; Alan P Lyss; Steven N Wolff; Debra M Wujcik; Neal J Meropol Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.840