Geoff A. | Rectifying Reputations
I lead our team of Site Partnership Managers as they advocate for their sites daily. I recall one instance where one of my Site Partnership Managers recommended a site where the CRO’s QA team discovered that there were some quality issues from a past trial that was conducted a long time ago. My team member was able to get the site’s side of the story and identify that the quality issues were due to the trial being one of the first studies the site conducted and expectations were not clear. Since then, the site implemented CAPAS and new processes to improve quality at the site. This information was provided to the sponsor study team to help show that even though at one time there were issues, they have since been resolved.
Cristina B. | Exceptional Exceptions
After a sponsor did not want to consider one of my sites I had recommended due to a competing trial at their site, I escalated the recommendation. This site was exceeding their enrollment commitment and I truly believed would be an exceptional performer. I was able to help the site show the sponsor how their patients would be prioritized for this trial, helping them be reconsidered by the sponsor and ultimately selected.
Clemence B. | Digging for Gold
I recently supported a highly motivated site who had a promising patient population but initially appeared to be a weak fit due lack of experienced in trials in the specific disease area. Upon asking them for more context around their experience in other disease and therapeutic areas, I uncovered the Sub-I was highly experienced and achieved extremely high performance in other therapeutic areas. We were able to recommend this site to the sponsor with confidence thanks to this valuable conversation and findings.
Devin B. | Expert Guidance
Devin was an outstanding partner for the site, supporting the site in completing 3 enrollment plans with Inato. She provided constructive feedback and clear recommendations which helped define the site’s strengths and capabilities. The site has been selected for 1 trial and selected for pre-selection visits for the 2 additional trials.” – Message from a site partner
Elaine M. | Mending Miscommunications
I recently worked with a site that was initially rejected for the trial after PSV due to a miscommunication that occurred at the visit regarding whether the site had access to a qualified rater. When I discovered the rejection reason and connected with the site about it, I found that they did have the qualified rater, and that there was a miscommunication during the visit. I had the project manager follow up with the sponsor to clarify, and the site was ultimately selected for the trial – their first Psychiatry trial, which was a big step into that therapeutic area for the site!
Have questions?
We’re here to help.
