This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1740774509344778v1 6/5/446    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by London, J. W Articles by Smith, J B. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by London, J. W Articles by Smith, J B. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The automation of clinical trial serious adverse event reporting workflow

Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA, jack.london{at}kimmelcancercenter.org

Karl J Smalley

Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Kyle Conner

Office of Human Research, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

J Bruce Smith

Office of Human Research, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Background The reporting of serious adverse events is a requirement when conducting a clinical trial involving human subjects, necessary for the protection of the participants. The reporting process is a multi-step procedure, involving a number of individuals from initiation to final review, and must be completed in a timely fashion.

Purpose The purpose of this project was to automate the adverse event reporting process, replacing paper-based processes with computer-based processes, so that personnel effort and time required for serious adverse event reporting was reduced, and the monitoring of reporting performance and adverse event characteristics was facilitated.

Methods Use case analysis was employed to understand the reporting workflow and generate software requirements. The automation of the workflow was then implemented, employing computer databases, web-based forms, electronic signatures, and email communication.

Results In the initial year (2007) of full deployment, 588 SAE reports were processed by the automated system, eSAEy^TM. The median time from initiation to Principal Investigator electronic signature was <2 days (mean 7 ± 0.7 days). This was a significant reduction from the prior paper-based system, which had a median time for signature of 24 days (mean of 45 ± 5.7 days). With eSAEy^TM, reports on adverse event characteristics (type, grade, etc.) were easily obtained and had consistent values based on standard terminologies.

Limitation The automated system described was designed specifically for the workflow at Thomas Jefferson University. While the methodology for system design, and the system requirements derived from common clinical trials adverse reporting procedures are applicable in general, specific workflow details may not be relevant at other institutions.

Conclusion The system facilitated analysis of individual investigator reporting performance, as well as the aggregation and analysis of the nature of reported adverse events. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 446—454. http://ctj.sagepub.com

This version was published on October 1, 2009

Clinical Trials, Vol. 6, No. 5, 446-454 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1740774509344778


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?