Clinical research associate (CRA) turnover has long been a complex and challenging issue. We can recruit more CRAs, increase publicity in colleges, and introduce assessment standards. I could quote various statistics regarding turnover, but I won’t.
A range of factors — including small patient populations, complex manufacturing processes, and lack of specialized expertise — are positioned to both drive up costs and require new options for stakeholder engagement and risk sharing along the development pathway. New approaches in development are needed to support the next generation of novel drugs on the horizon.
When a pharma or biotech sponsor company engages with a contract research organization (CRO) and other service providers, it develops a list that details which organization is responsible for each task to be conducted. The degree to which a small to midsize sponsor has the expertise and the resources internally to manage a task, as well as budgetary constraints, will dictate which tasks it delegates and which it keeps in-house.
For clinical researchers, patient-centricity is not a buzzword. It reflects a commitment to patients. They should always be at the center of everything we do.
According to the 2016 California Workforce Trends in the Life Science Industry, there were 16,000 statewide life science job postings during the calendar year; 2,732 of those jobs related to clinical trials. In 2015, over 85 percent of life science positions required a minimum of a bachelor’s degree. Hiring managers expect the strong demand for talent to continue until 2018.
As someone who obsesses about root cause analyses, I have naturally been thinking about the primary root causes for why we seem to have lost focus and interest in the sites and what we can do about it.