Therica M Miller1, Jenny Lester2, Lorna Kwan3, Megha D Tandel3, Beth Y Karlan2, B J Rimel4. 1. Hartford Healthcare Cancer Institute, Hartford, CT. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Inefficiencies in the clinical trial infrastructure result in protracted trial completion timelines, physician-investigator turnover, and a shrinking skilled labor force and present obstacles to research participation. Taken together, these barriers hinder scientific progress. Technological solutions to improve clinical trial efficiency have emerged, yet adoption remains slow because of concerns with cost, regulatory compliance, and implementation. METHODS: A prospective pilot study that compared regulatory-compliant digital and traditional wet ink paper signatures was conducted over a 6.5-month period in a hospital-based health system. Staff time and effort, error rate, costs, and time to completion were measured. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare staff time and time to completion. A value analysis was conducted. A survey was administered to measure user satisfaction. RESULTS: There where 96 participants (47 digital, 49 paper), 132 studies included (31 digital, 101 paper), and 265 documents processed (156 digital, 109 paper). A moderate reduction in staff time required to prepare documents for signature was observed (P < .0001). Error rates were reported in 5.1% of digital and 2.8% of paper documents, but this difference was not significant. Discrepancies requiring revisions included incomplete mandatory fields, inaccurate information submitted, and technical issues. A value analysis demonstrated a 19% labor savings with the use of digital signatures. Survey response rate was 57.4% (n = 27). Most participants (85.2%) preferred digital signatures. The time to complete documents was faster with digital signatures compared with paper (P = .0241). CONCLUSION: The use of digital signatures resulted in a decrease in document completion time and regulatory burden as represented by staff hours. Additional cost and time savings and information liquidity could be realized by integrating digital signatures and electronic document management systems.
PURPOSE: Inefficiencies in the clinical trial infrastructure result in protracted trial completion timelines, physician-investigator turnover, and a shrinking skilled labor force and present obstacles to research participation. Taken together, these barriers hinder scientific progress. Technological solutions to improve clinical trial efficiency have emerged, yet adoption remains slow because of concerns with cost, regulatory compliance, and implementation. METHODS: A prospective pilot study that compared regulatory-compliant digital and traditional wet ink paper signatures was conducted over a 6.5-month period in a hospital-based health system. Staff time and effort, error rate, costs, and time to completion were measured. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare staff time and time to completion. A value analysis was conducted. A survey was administered to measure user satisfaction. RESULTS: There where 96 participants (47 digital, 49 paper), 132 studies included (31 digital, 101 paper), and 265 documents processed (156 digital, 109 paper). A moderate reduction in staff time required to prepare documents for signature was observed (P < .0001). Error rates were reported in 5.1% of digital and 2.8% of paper documents, but this difference was not significant. Discrepancies requiring revisions included incomplete mandatory fields, inaccurate information submitted, and technical issues. A value analysis demonstrated a 19% labor savings with the use of digital signatures. Survey response rate was 57.4% (n = 27). Most participants (85.2%) preferred digital signatures. The time to complete documents was faster with digital signatures compared with paper (P = .0241). CONCLUSION: The use of digital signatures resulted in a decrease in document completion time and regulatory burden as represented by staff hours. Additional cost and time savings and information liquidity could be realized by integrating digital signatures and electronic document management systems.
Authors: David M Dilts; Alan B Sandler; Steven K Cheng; Joshua S Crites; Lori B Ferranti; Amy Y Wu; Shanda Finnigan; Steven Friedman; Margaret Mooney; Jeffrey Abrams Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karen M Winkfield; Jonathan K Phillips; Steven Joffe; Michael T Halpern; Dana S Wollins; Beverly Moy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Helen L Yin; Janice Gabrilove; Rebecca Jackson; Carol Sweeney; Alecia M Fair; Robert Toto Journal: Acad Med Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: David A Cook; Christopher M Wittich; Wendlyn L Daniels; Colin P West; Ann M Harris; Timothy J Beebe Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Amy Corneli; Christine Pierre; Terri Hinkley; Li Lin; Christopher B Fordyce; Gerrit Hamre; Matthew T Roe Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2017-03-08