3 Things I Wish Patient Recruitment Vendors Understood About Sites
It’s (probably) harder than it needs to be
Editor’s Note: As I was writing my last post on challenges with site enrollment, I sent a draft over to Brad to get his perspective, which he has generously shared here. I believe that some honest work in reconciling these two positions would have concrete benefits, and look forward to continuing the conversation. -PI
As it stands, sites are the only players in the game that can actually enroll patients in clinical trials. It’s literally the only way we can make money. We do a lot of crazy stuff at the behest of sponsors, CROs, PIs, vendors, IRBs, and patients. And we get paid for almost none of it unless it involves a protocol-directed patient visit. You would think that sites would be begging for any and all tools that might help get patients in the door. A whole industry of well-meaning tech bros, sales gurus, social media experts and community pavement pounders has sprung up to assist sites with enrollment. Unfortunately, most sites simply don’t use them. Why would sites turn down free help?
1. We’ve been burned before.
We recently had a study that utilized a central campaign. Sounds great. It produced 81 leads. Hell yeah! Not a single patient converted to an enrollment.
There are a multitude of reasons that this is the case, some probably our fault, some the vendor, but I can guarantee that almost every site has had this very experience.
Patients who don’t even have the diagnosis being studied, endless games of phone tag, patients who don’t know why you’re calling them and want you to remove them from the list, I/E criteria that make it almost impossible to determine if someone is even worth bringing in over a simple phone call, no-shows at an alarming rate - these are all part and parcel of patient recruitment campaigns. After a couple experiences like this, sites will simply opt out altogether.
2. Many (most?) sites simply aren’t well equipped to handle central campaigns.
I love CRCs. I was a (shitty) CRC for years before starting a site myself. In my opinion, CRCs are the least paid and most overworked personnel in the space. You are now essentially asking them to make cold calls. You might not know this but people hate making cold calls. Even sales professionals hate making cold calls - you’re bothering people, you are often cursed at, you’re constantly being rejected. It sucks. CRCs are not sales people and most simply do not have this skill set. As a result, they will avoid making cold calls at all costs. Sites that aren’t big enough to have call centers are likely to let those campaigns drop to the bottom of their priority list.
3. Central campaigns blend right in with an ever growing list of vendors.
I can’t begin to tell you how many studies we’ve worked on where we didn’t even know that a central recruitment campaign was available until well after the study started. If we agree, there is often no insight given into how the campaign works, what questions are being asked, or what the expectation is for outreach. We’re directed to a portal and chastised if it isn’t updated regularly so that someone can keep their metrics up. Very little, if any, actual support is given. Frankly it’s way easier to ignore the stranger who works for the recruitment company that I’ve never heard of than my CRA, PI or patient who also need constant attention.
Honestly, I mostly agree with Paul’s sister (brother?) article. Sites truly should do a much better job in utilizing the help that they are being offered. I would love to see CRCs trained with some basic sales/customer service skills and be more proactive in working directly with patient recruitment services. On the flip side, I think it would serve these vendors to do more to learn the specific needs/abilities of the sites they are working with.
Sadly, we are leaving way too many patients behind by not working more closely together.
 | A guest post by
|