How to market your clinical research site to sponsors with real data [10:35-15:39]

in a different way they'll go with the same Plexa Riasis study and they'll say well on this site's last Plexa Riasis study they actually screened 12 people and randomized 7 so they have the exact historical metrics now the IE criteria is obviously different but those are two examples of different data driven solutions for the same sponsor theoretically so which one is better I don't know I think it's going to very study by study by study but the point is they're both better than the previous paradigm of sites just guist the mating and that's where the industry is headed we used to be in the trust but verify so that was the whole point of the site selection visit the monitor the sponsor would send the monitor to go verify what the site said on the feasibility and they're still doing that but now it's becoming more verify then trust and the sites that are not able to comply with the verification prior to even being awarded a study are kind of falling back they're kind of falling behind and Monica put together this very good internal document I didn't even ask her if it's okay for me to share some of this but I'm going to I won't can't get to details is like 50 pages but it pertains to how you answer feasibility questions yourself again this is why I think free tools like what we offer at cordonair.co is the future because we're data driven as well the more sites use our tool the better our engine becomes for how to help sites answer questions themselves and it's it's it's going to kind of walk you through the feasibility process based on what you know and then things that you don't know it's going to spit out the at the averages of what sites typically put so in a way you're not left behind is that valuable for the sponsors I'm not sure because ultimately they are going to verify anyways but at least you can put your best foot forward in a better foot forward than just guess the mating and being way off of what everyone else has so that's a shout out to her free tool but of course risk sponsors are scoring will this site enroll will start up be predictable will monitoring be expensive is this site audit defensible can this site deliver representative enrollment meaning demographic wise can the site absorb the tech burden so let's go into order because these are the these are the issues that sponsor like the main issues main risks that sponsors care about so let's go one by one will this site enroll we kind of discussed that we kind of discussed two sponsors of this podcast actually what they're doing to help alleviate that concern for sponsors at least from sites that use Creo and sites that use a nada so they want to see this is the sponsor now what they want to see referral channels a defined screen failure rate retention to primary endpoint and a realistic statement that limits commitment before inclusion exclusion review so essentially they want again verify then trust I think both inado and creo deliver good solutions I don't know which ones better but like I said they're both better than guessing I think coordinator does a good job of hand holding you on the parts you're not sure if you're the site how to answer because at the end of the day we are a site focused tool and sponsors are not really our core audience for it start up times this is a whole other aspect of the trial that sponsors are worried about and it's a huge risk area how long is the site taking to do their CDA you'll be amazed how many sites just sit on their confidentiality disclosure agreement like sponsors literally telling you I want to give you a study and you're not answering their CDA like that they're just going to move on so what's the time for the CDA for me at same day CTA which is the contract and then the budget yes those can be done in parallel with IRB approval it shouldn't matter because most sites watching this are using a central IRB