The Fallacy of Footnotes Within Clinical Protocols

As part of our series covering all the do’s and don’ts surrounding protocols, I wanted to call attention to one of the greatest urban legends in clinical research…the requirement to include endless footnotes (in size 6 or 8 font no less!), at the end of the schedule of assessments in the protocol.  I have searched high and low for regulatory guidance documents that mandate such a practice, to no avail.  Common protocol templates created by organizations and industry collaboratives vary on their use of footnotes within the templates, but nowhere have I found that this is a requirement to get a protocol approved.  Yet, it is a common practice and one that contributes more to non-compliance than just about any other facet of the protocol.

It is not uncommon to see upwards of 21 footnotes in a typical Phase III study.  In one recent protocol I evaluated there were 17 footnotes, 6 “*’s” and 8 “notes” provided as part of the schedule of assessments.  I confess that I wasn’t sure what the differences were between these and what prompted the decision to use three different formats for conveying the procedural requirements versus just using footnotes.  But what I was sure about, is that the sites would have difficulty understanding and complying with the requirements.

The solution is simple.  Just add an extra column to the schedule of events with the content of the footnote.  Rather than the site having to hunt around for an important footnote that might appear several pages later in the protocol, the information will be readily available and easily readable right next to the required procedure.

Instead of this…


*Be sure to do this procedure prior to the morning dosing on days with fasting labs*

 

Do this…


A coworker recently mentioned to me that Elon Musk’s claim to fame has been challenging the norm.  The willingness to ask “why are we doing it this way?” has led to some of his innovative discoveries and his success.  So I was inspired to ask the hard question for all you protocol writers out there:

“Why are you creating more unnecessary confusion for your sites by using footnotes instead of adding in an extra column to the schedule of assessments?”

It costs nothing but potentially saves hundreds of protocol deviations.  

While you may not be rewarded with the billions of dollars that Mr. Musk has acquired for his inventions, challenging the norm when you write or review your next protocol will reap even greater rewards….happy sites….cleaner data…safer subjects.  Now that’s what I call a great return on investment!

Increasing Diversity in Clinical Research with High-Quality Training

Over the last several years, the pharma industry, along with the world at large, has become increasingly focused on issues of diversity. This has been reflected in regulatory guidelines, government and industry policies and in the clinical trial recruitment phase of new drug research and development. However, relatively little attention has gone to diversity within the clinical research workforce, which many industry insiders have suggested can significantly enhance study population diversity.

But sponsors and research sites will need to invest in training to ensure that diversity and inclusiveness are priorities not only for individual clinical trials, but also for general operations.

The bulk of focus regarding diversity has been on ensuring sufficient representation in clinical trial populations in order to meet regulatory standards for data submitted in support of marketing authorization. For instance, current NIH policy, as updated in 2017, encourages inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials. The policy requires valid analysis and reporting of sex/gender, race and ethnicity through ClinicalTrials.gov. And in the autumn of 2020, the FDA issued a guidance on enhancing diversity in clinical trial populations.

In November of 2019, the NIH published a notice of interest in diversity among workers in the research and discovery process; that notice did not, however, address the clinical research workforce. 

Industry groups also have focused on diversity. The Society for Clinical Research Sites (SCRS), for instance, has developed tools through its Diversity Awareness Program to improve recruitment of diverse patient populations in clinical trials. The SCRS program includes an assessment tool to provide guidance for research sites to improve their ability to recruit diverse patient populations for their clinical trials.

“However, little emphasis on diversity in the workplace is evidenced in the clinical research industry,” Erika Stevens, chair of the ACRP board of trustees and leader of Transformation Advisory Solutions at Recherche Transformation Rapide, wrote earlier this year in a column for Clinical Researcher

But that could be changing. In 2019, ACRP’s existing Partners in Workforce Advancement launched a digital media campaign to boost awareness of the clinical research profession among a more diverse student population. 

Stevens also noted that ACRP has launched a Diversity Advisory Council aimed at growing diversity of the clinical research workforce, help to further develop the existing minority workforce and improve engagement within the industry on the value of diversity and inclusion.

“Developing a larger, more diverse workforce is imperative to the existence, quality and efficiency of clinical research and the inclusion of more diverse clinical trial participants,” ACRP wrote on the “Partners in Workforce Advancement” page on its website.

The value of a diverse workforce—particularly in how it can affect clinical trial recruitment—is an increasingly noticeable theme within the industry. For instance, PRA Health Sciences stated on its website that “diverse clinical research starts with the healthcare workforce.”

“Diversity initiatives are a hallmark of clinical research. From FDA-penned guidance and pharma initiatives to years of research showing that diverse trials improve outcomes, researchers have placed ample focus on the importance of diverse trial populations,” PRA wrote. “Diversity is also essential in the clinical research workforce.”

PRA suggested that increasing diversity in the clinical research workforce may improve diversity among clinical trial participants.

“If you see it, you remember it,” Mary Beth Panagos, simulation producer at Pro-ficiency, agreed, discussing how diversity-focused training can enhance diversity in trial populations. “You are looking out for it.”

Training is important because it is possible to unwittingly introduce unconscious bias in people, Panagos said. If a training shows training with all white Americans, for instance, it might be easier to dismiss someone from Bangladesh. 

Minority participants often cite a lack of trust in researchers. That trust can be built via what PRA refers to as culturally competent communications, also known as cross-cultural communication or culturally congruent communication. What it boils down to is the ability of clinical researchers to provide a shared decision-making environment that considers the context of a patient’s background.

“When the clinical research workforce—those in charge of designing and executing trials, as well as recruiting and retaining patients—is already operating from a place of diversity, equity and inclusion, the barriers to creating culturally competent communication decrease,” PRA concludes.

 

Diversity-focused training

And how can sponsors, CROs and research sites ensure culturally competent communication throughout a clinical trial’s life cycle? One answer that looms large is to employ training methods that emphasize diversity and inclusiveness in a variety of ways.

Panagos pointed out that there are many indicators of diversity beyond the commonly considered race and sex. Age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, even geographical location and body type, are among the many metrics that can and should be considered.

It begins with representation in training materials, Panagos said. For instance, ensuring that training programs represent things that are considered nontraditional—a father taking a daughter to a doctor’s visit or a black person in a position of authority, for example– is an important part of.

Pro-ficiency’s simulation-focused training, for instance, is designed and developed with diversity in mind, Panagos said. The production team is always focused on ensuring that diverse races, genders, ethnicities, etc. are represented in all roles shown in the training.

And clients have proven to be already on board with these initiatives, with little pushback seen, she said.

A central part of that focus includes hiring actors for the simulations that represent diverse populations. Pro-ficiency, for instance, often uses a North Carolina community theatre organization for a great deal of their casting needs; this organization has proven well-able to provide actors that meet race, age, gender and other needs. Local casting can be important for this type of training, to ensure that populations local to research sites are properly represented.

“Diversity starts in the scripts,” she said. “This includes finding diverse actors. Sometimes we have to hire based on availability, but we make a point to cast diversity.”

“One of the big things is making sure that we are well-represented,” she added. “That means making sure that diversity includes positions of authority in the training materials. For instance, rather than casting a white person as the doctor, research coordinator or other authority figure in a particular scene, the production team should make a point to choose a minority actor for some of those roles.”

And when developing training for a specific clinical trial, it’s important to understand the target patient population. The training should reflect the race, age, body type and health conditions of that population.

Local representation can be important, particularly for large, multi-site trials that include international sites, or even just sites spread across a variety of discrete communities that may be culturally, racially or otherwise distinct from each other.

In addition to representational casting, diversity among the team developing a training program is an important factor, Pro-ficiency’s Natalie Rosen noted. Input from a diverse training development team can help ensure that the training presents different types of learning experiences simultaneously.

Diversity in the training design team helps ensure that the training is designed with diversity and accessibility from the outset, she explained.

For example, by using training that is designed to serve a neurodiverse population, a research site or pharma company can provide training that will work well for a variety of learning styles among neurotypical people, as well. Pro-ficiency’s simulation-based training provides information that is read, heard and seen, Rosen explained. This ensures that all learners can remain engaged throughout the training program.

“A program built around diverse needs from the beginning will benefit everyone,” Rosen said. “When training is designed and applied for the experiences of a very diverse population, it will benefit everyone in that population.”

And there is always room to increase inclusiveness. For example, training could include representations of people with disabilities, chronic health conditions or who are not neurotypical. If these individuals could be found among the target population of a particular study or site, it would be appropriate to include them in training for that trial or that site. And it can be worthwhile to include that representation generally, as well.

“We have metrics that we track across all sites,” Panagos said. “Those metrics look at critical decision points or how often trainees get something wrong. Keeping metrics for that look at diversity is an important part of this process. For instance, problems in understanding a protocol could result from faulty translation in multi-national studies or cultural misunderstandings.” 

101 Things That Could Go Wrong if You Don’t Get Your Training Right

Although it can be tricky to acquire proper clinical site training, inadequate planning for a research study’s training needs will create unnecessary, avoidable costs down the road. Let’s take a look at a not-so-uncommon scenario. You budgeted about $20 million dollars to complete your Phase III clinical trial.  You spent months fine-tuning the protocol to perfection.   All of your third-party vendors are engaged and their systems are operational.  Regulatory and ethics approvals are expected any moment and the investigational drug is at the depots ready for distribution. Your investigational compound is meeting an unmet medical need so your clinical sites are especially motivated to start enrolling.  In fact, 100% of the site staff have completed their required online training modules – a first in your organization’s history!  What could possibly go wrong?

We’ve compiled our all-time favorite list of things that can go wrong when it comes to sites actually implementing that perfect-on-paper protocol.  If you can answer yes to all these questions then YOU DON’T NEED US!  You’ve mastered the art and science of effective site training and preparation. Congratulations! But if you can’t answer yes with confidence to even a few of these, you may want to put us on speed dial.  All of these lend themselves to our virtual protocol simulation training approach. We’ll give your protocol a test drive through our dissection and analysis process.  We’re confident that we can find a thing or two that could derail your study.  We’d be delighted to help eliminate those pesky deviations from rearing their ugly heads before it’s too late.   

 

Without calling you in a panic, will your sites know what to do if…

Enrollment

  • A potential subject doesn’t have a documented history of one of your I/E criteria?
  • The perfect pre-screen-qualified subject takes a prohibited medication the evening before the randomization visit?
  • The subject wishes to participate but their personal physician doesn’t want them to?
  • The central reader’s image uploading portal goes down while they are submitting a critical source document needed before randomization…and the subject is waiting in the office?
  • The site can’t get the centrally provided ECG machine to work?
  • The subject tests positive for THC the morning of the randomization visit?
  • The central lab results conflict with the local lab results?
  • The subject got a late start on the prohibited medication washout period and the screening period is running out?
  • The site realizes they enrolled a subject who was not eligible?
  • The subject’s source documents reveal conflicting information about a certain eligibility criterion?

Study Drug Prep and Administration

  • The study drug arrives out of the required temperature range?
  • The study drug appears contaminated when they check it?
  • The site finds out at the last minute that the subject can’t swallow pills?
  • The subject isn’t tolerating the dose?
  • The subject is non-compliance with the dosing regimen?
  • The subject forgets to take their medication?
  • The subject takes their medication at the wrong time…with or without food (in contravention of the protocol requirements)?
  • The site forgets to follow the dose tapering schedule?
  • The site realizes the study drug just expired and the subject is due for a refill that day?
  • The subject reports that another family member took several doses of the study medication?
  • The site inadvertently breaks the blind when administering the study treatment?
  • Weight-based dosing is required and the subject’s weight changes during the study?

Visit Schedules

  • The subject has to miss a visit due to a family emergency?
  • The subject is a no-show for a visit?   
  • The subject is a no-show for several visits?

Study Procedures / Equipment

  • The required equipment doesn’t work or breaks just prior to the study visit?
  • The staff person certified / approved to perform certain tasks is unavailable for a given day?
  • The subject is not complying with their ePRO requirements?
  • The subject’s wearable device stops working?
  • Study supplies don’t arrive in time for a subject’s visit and the visit window is expiring that day?

Safety Management and Reporting

  • The subject has an AE of Special Interest?
  • The subject received a prohibited medication for an AE that occurred while they were out of the area and the PI couldn’t be contacted?

 

(In case you were counting that’s only 32 and not 150 things that could go wrong, but you get the idea).  Send us or share your trickiest “what if” scenario.  We’ll add it to the list and see if we can’t just find a way to create a good simulation vignette of it!

Stop the SIV Madness

At the outset of this post, I want to make one thing clear. I am a huge fan of and an advocate for CRAs.  I’ve been one and I have spent the better part of my career mentoring, teaching and helping CRAs develop their competency to effectively monitor clinical trials to ensure protocol and GCP compliance.  So it is not for a lack of respect for all the great CRAs and monitors out there that I am proposing we STOP THE MADNESS of having CRAs conduct site training at site initiation visits (SIVs).  Seriously.   Think about it.

You go through a rigorous process to select investigators qualified by training and experience (ICH 5.6.1).  You’ve secured their willingness to comply with the protocol (ICH 5.6.3).  You cover your regulatory requirements to provide them with the information they need to conduct the trial (5.6.2) (even though the guidelines ICH GCPs don’t actually mandate that the sponsor is responsible for training the site).  And, you create the ideal training materials and methods and validate that the sites are competent, qualified and trained to conduct the trial (see Parts 1 and 2 of this blog post series).  But you have absolutely no faith that your site qualification and training processes work so you send the CRA out to further “train” the sites at the SIV.  What are you hoping to accomplish by doing this other than potentially annoying and alienating your site?  Even worse, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the training the sites have already completed by having CRAs who are not necessarily skilled trainers (nor presenters of content) take the site through a death-by-slides march.

I encourage you to pause right now and count the # of slides you have in your SIV training deck.  My running average, having viewed hundreds of these in my career, is 212 slides. No joke.

So imagine wanting to be the sponsor or CRO of choice.  Now imagine you are a busy investigator (who has already completed your training) being lectured to by a CRA who drones on for hours reading slides that regurgitate word for word, the information in the protocol that the PI has already read, signed and agreed to comply with!  Not to mention that the CRA, who may be new (in general, or to the study) or who is managing multiple studies, has had little time to review the slides in advance.  Or that the CRA received no special training on the study, other than the slide deck.  Or that the training doesn’t include any practical examples, case study materials, simulation exercises or job aids.  Or that the CRA has never received training in how to be an effective trainer.  Any wonder that all the PI (and site staff) want to do is leave the room as quickly as possible to avoid this painful process?!?

Not only have you just undone any value from what was hopefully an effective training approach to begin with, but you have literally disengaged your site staff from wanting to work on your protocol.   You’ve set the site and the CRA up for failure, to what end?

I believe that your site training approach is not only critical to preventing deviations, but should be viewed as a site engagement strategy.  The more relevant, impactful, and dare I say, enjoyable the site training experience is, the more your sites will be interested and eager to work on your study.  Plain and simple.  By eliminating the pressure on the CRAs to attempt to “train” the sites in this fashion, they can focus on what they do best, which is developing productive site relationships and monitoring the study.  The SIV can therefore focus on what really matters to the success of the study:

  • Ensuring the site is operationally ready to implement the study
  • Checking that all equipment is received and in working order
  • Verifying that supplies are adequate
  • Guaranteeing the site has a proactive recruitment action plan in place and is truly enrollment ready the moment the CRA walks out the door.

Not convinced?   Then try this thought experiment.   What’s the worst possible outcome you could have if you eliminate the “training” aspect from your SIV?  What’s the best possible outcome…for your sites, your CRAs, and your study?   I challenge you to “stop the madness” and see what actually happens to your enrollment and deviation rates. I guarantee you’ll be happy with the results!

The Nature vs. Nurture in Developing a Corporate Culture

I have seen in my own life the power of nature vs. nurture.  I was adopted at birth and recently connected with six birth siblings.  It is interesting to observe both the power of nature and nurture.  We were raised in different homes and environments that helped shape who we became as adults.  At the same time, you notice similarities with each sibling that comes from the genetics that we all share.

I think corporate culture is similar.  There is both the nature of the culture that you want to develop while also nurturing its application in your company.

At Pro-ficiency, we determined the nature of the culture and values that we wanted to establish for our company.  The below chart is an expression of our cultural aspirations.

Our team is a mix of artists, scientists and business experts.  We intentionally constructed the DNA of our values to be as unique as the team that we have assembled.  We wanted to avoid traditional corporate jargon.  We settled on four core elements of our values:

  • Pioneer
  • Solidarity
  • Spirit of Service
  • Relentless

Surrounding those values is a 360 circle of trust among team members.

We are pioneers.  This reflects both the spirit of our founder Dave Hadden and the uniqueness of our solution.  As we grow our business, we will look for expansion opportunities by seeing both the problem that we are solving and our solution in a unique way.  There are several Albert Einstein quotes that we love at Pro-ficiency that captures our spirit as Pioneers:

  • “A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.”
  • “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”
  • And his best quote… “learning is an experience, everything else is just information.”

Secondly, we value Solidarity.  Our success comes as a team, not as an individual.  We value diverse thought while focusing on the same outcome for our customers.  We move and operate as a team guided by True North for our business and our “OKR Management System” as our organizing framework.  We share a common goal with our customers of improving the operation of clinical trials.

Third, we operate in a Spirit of Service.  We want to better enable our customers to accelerate drug discovery.  This is personal for each of us as we have family members that have been impacted by miracle therapeutics developed by the industry that we serve.  There is no higher calling than helping improve human health and quality of life.

Our Spirit of Service also extends to the communities that we live in.  We encourage our team members to share their unique talents and resources in their local area.  Last week we had our first community service event Filling the Bus with school supplies for students in the Durham County school district near our office.

Finally, we are relentless.  We are driven by being the best at what we do.  We aspire to delight our customers in the design, delivery and support of our simulations that transform protocol delivery.  We value having high-performing, execution-driven team members.

With those four attributes of the “Nature” of our culture, how do we “Nurture” them?  

First of all, it starts with the individuals that we bring onto the team.  We interview carefully for these values.  We also make these values inherent to the performance review process for each team member.

Secondly, we review our core values in each monthly All Hands Meeting.  We want these values to be more than a slogan hung on a wall.  

Third, we embed these values into how we operate.  As we built out our company growth playbook, we focused on new pioneering innovations rather than “me too” technologies.  Our “OKR Management System” is also an example of how we restlessly measure our execution against the key performance indicators for our business.

Finally, we live out every day in the Spirit of Service to our industry and our community by providing exceptional products and services.

Ultimately, the most valuable asset in our company is our people.  The culture is simply an expression of the values that guide our journey to True North.

Jim Collins is one of my favorite teachers of what makes great companies tick.  He has authored amazing books like Good to Great, Built to Last and How the Mighty Fall based upon his 25 years of research.  Here is a quote from Jim on developing a great culture.

Disciplined people who engage in disciplined thought and who take disciplined action—operating with freedom within a framework of responsibilities—this is the cornerstone of a culture that creates greatness. In a culture of discipline, people do not have jobs; they have responsibilities. When you blend a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get a magical alchemy resulting in superior performance.

We believe that we have settled on the perfect cultural framework for our team.  Experience the Pro-ficiency culture by having us partner in the delivery of your next clinical trial.

PhRMA Alters Their Code on Interactions: How to Prepare

PhRMA has adjusted its Code on Interactions, partly in response to the Special Fraud Alert issued by the OIG.

Pro-ficiency is on a mission is to eliminate protocol deviations, one clinical study at a time. This mission is more important than ever, given the recent changes to the Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The update was announced on August 6, 2021, and will take effect on January 1, 2022.
The full Code on Interactions can be found here.

The update was partly released in response to a Special Fraud Alert issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) on November 16, 2020.
The full Special Fraud Alert issued by the OIG can be found here.

The OIG memo highlighted several key concerns including on-site meetings held at high-end resorts or hotels, expensive meals, and the overall medical value of meetings sponsored by members of PhRMA. Although, the industry has made many changes over the years regarding its interactions with HCPs the critical issue remains the same and that is providing important scientific or clinical information that an HCP can utilize in an unbiased and instructive manner.

Pro-ficiency’s virtual simulation technology can do just that – provide clinical instruction in a web-based solution that allows the user to learn at any time and at their own pace; thereby, ensuring that the information is retained and utilized to ultimately eliminate protocol deviations and improve overall understanding.

In addition to providing a training platform for clinical trials, the technology can also be easily used for presenting CME’s to HCPs in a remote, cost-effective, and accountable method that eliminates the risk of triggering any concerns associated with the revised PhRMA Code or the recent OIG Fraud Memo.

Reach out to Pro-ficiency to learn how we can help you eliminate protocol deviations and improve HCP training.

Are Your Sites Failing Your Training? If Not, They Should Be!

Are Your Sites Failing Your Training?  If Not, They Should Be! 

Did you know that 100% of a seasoned clinical research audience attending a recent webinar all agreed on the key metric that should define investigative site training success?  Can you guess what that was?

It had nothing to do with timely completion of training, accuracy on protocol knowledge checks, or site satisfaction of the training approach.  Instead, there was unanimous agreement that site training success should be defined as zero defects.  More specifically zero IMPORTANT protocol deviations.  That’s a lofty goal for sure, especially since we know that too many of these IMPORTANT protocol deviations can sink your trial.  But we are convinced that the goal of zero important deviations is absolutely achievable with the right training strategy and methodology.   Certainly, this assumes a reasonable study design but barring insurmountable protocol-related issues, there is really no reason why studies should suffer from “deviation-itis.”  

As an industry, we’re getting better at identifying and tracking deviations in real-time.  Catching and mitigating deviations early on are one weapon in our arsenal for combatting deviations but the damage is already done by the time the deviation has occurred.  The subject and/or data integrity may have already been put at risk.  It’s like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.  You may be able to salvage what’s left but you’ve already wasted that resource (granted, toothpaste isn’t as precious an asset as a clinical trial subject, but you get the point).

The other limitation with linking zero defects to training success is that it’s a lagging indicator.  Not that it shouldn’t be a key metric, but it doesn’t allow the sponsor or CRO to identify which sites / site staff are most and least likely to deviate, and in which areas the deviations are most likely to occur.  

Enter protocol simulation training.  By simulating the most realistic scenarios that sites will face in the study, you can actually measure how they will perform.  Will they make the right decision on:

  • What to do if the subject takes a restricted medication just before the randomization visit?
  • How to address a temperature excursion of the investigational product?
  • Whether an AE is reportable as an SAE or event of special interest?
  • What should be done if the subject misses a dose or study visit where a procedure can’t be completed?

Identifying and taking action on any potential deviation such as these is one thing, but ideally the training allows the learner to critically think through preventive actions.  The simulation scenarios should not only model what can go wrong and assess potential corrective actions, but more importantly, how the issues can be prevented.

Simulation allows the site staff to practice the protocol in a safe environment before exposing real subjects and real data to potential risks.  There is a well-known adage that real learning takes place when you make a mistake.  So we actually want our sites to fail in the training.  In fact, failing fast and failing often in the simulation accelerates their protocol learning curve.  Conversely, the more the sites know the material, the quicker they can get through the training and have their competency for making the correct decisions reinforced.

Simulation can be done in live Investigator Meeting Workshops, during Site Initiation Visits and through eLearning. Simulated eLearning however provides a number of advantages.  One can measure the number of times it takes the learner to get to the correct information.  These analytics provide a leading indicator of the site’s performance in the trial.  It also creates an opportunity to provide feedback and mentoring in a consistent manner if the learner makes a mistake.

Here’s to allowing sites to FAIL in the simulated trial so they can SUCCEED in the real one!

What Asset Isn’t Listed on Your Balance Sheet?

SAS CEO Jim Goodnight famously quoted “Ninety-five percent of my assets drive out the gate every evening. It’s my job to maintain a work environment that keeps those people coming back every morning.” (1)  But what did he mean by “assets”?  

Financially speaking, an asset is something that carries value on a balance sheet, like a computer, car, or building.  

As the CFO of Pro-ficiency, it’s my responsibility to measure profitability, analyze the balance sheet, and track a plethora of metrics that highlight the overall value of our organization.  Being a good steward of our finances puts us in the best position to realize our goals and exceed customer expectations.  While it’s imperative to report financial data to various stakeholders, the most critical driver to our success can’t be accounted for in a financial report.  That asset is our team.

During a recent all-hands gathering, our team celebrated the grand opening of our new facility, welcomed new hires, and kicked off our first community service event.  Before the meeting concluded, I looked around the room and became overwhelmed by a sense of excitement, admiration, hope, and humility. You see, in a short amount of time, we have assembled and harnessed the power of an eclectic, energized, talented, and caring group of people. Team Pro-ficiency!

After this meeting, we pulled our resources together, collected and delivered boxes of school supplies to disadvantaged schools in our community (visit https://www.crayons2calculators.org/ for more information). This act of service exemplifies the positive impact a team can have when they work together and commit to a positive core values system.  

Leaders should strive to facilitate a work environment for their employees that promotes growth, solidarity, and a sense of belonging.

Pro-ficiency makes it our mission to offer creative solutions to challenges that clinical trials are facing.  We accomplish this by fusing art and science into a magical experience for our end users. 

Please refer to our website learn about our core values and other company information at https://www.pro-ficiency.com/about/

Works Cited:

  1. https://www.sas.com/en_us/company-information/leadership/jim-goodnight.html

What Does Pro-ficiency Have in Common With HP, Microsoft, Google and Amazon?

They all started in a garage.  

Our founder Dave Hadden is a serial entrepreneur.  He has founded several successful companies in his career with Pro-ficiency being his most successful to date.  After building the foundational software technology for creating simulations, Dave needed a studio to shoot the video elements of simulations.  His garage was the perfect location for setting up the first Pro-ficiency studio.

By the end of 2020, there were more than 800K businesses in the US that were less than one year old.   The data further shows that the largest number of new startups likely took place during the COVID year of 2021.

A study conducted by IBM Institute for Business Value (IBV) and Oxford Economics found that 90% of start-ups fail within the first five years due to the lack of innovation and unique business models.  Dave has a track record of developing companies that uniquely solve problems in the healthcare segment.

According to Artem Minaev, 7.1% of the startups in the world operate in the Fintech industry. Followed by Life sciences and healthcare with 6.8%, Artificial intelligence with 5.0%, Gaming 4.7%, Adtech 3.3%, and Edtech with 2.8%. Even though there isn’t completely accurate data about industry distribution, it’s clear that modern startups gravitate towards the internet and digital technologies.

Dave’s selection of healthcare and life sciences was not by accident.  He had seen the challenges first hand with inadequate, outdated approaches to preparing clinical trial investigative teams for their critical role in drug discovery.  These didactic training approaches had changed little since the days of Socrates and led to protocol deviations and systemic delays. Dave’s vision was to create an immersive training experience that improved the execution of clinical trials.  

Fatimah Lateef, from Singapore General Hospital, has proven that simulation is the most effective way to develop health professionals’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes, while protecting patients from unnecessary risks.  He also points out in his article, Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing, that healthcare should embrace simulation training tools just like the fields of aviation and military.

How has the Pro-ficiency simulation training approach worked in the real world?  The ultimate measure of success is whether the training assisted the site staff in avoiding protocol deviations.  Over 87% agreed or strongly agreed with that statement in a recent survey conducted with almost 1,500 investigators that leveraged the Pro-ficiency simulation training platform for a clinical trial.

Pro-ficiency has come a long way since that first simulation video shot in Dave’s garage.  We recently opened our own full-time studio in Research Triangle Park managed by Bobby Natassi, our Emmy award-winning producer.  We also now serve the simulation training needs of over 65K investigators around the world.

Much like HP, Microsoft, Google and Amazon we desire to make a meaningful, global impact.  Join Pro-ficiency in helping accelerate drug discovery by eliminating protocol deviations.

Lessons Learned from Bill Belichick

Bill Belichick has won six Super Bowls as a head coach in his storied career.  He also has two Super Bowl rings from his time as an assistant coach.   No one else has had the same sustained success as an NFL coach.

Winning as an NFL coach starts with the formation of the roster.  Without the right athletes, there is no amount of coaching that can make up for a deficit of talent.  It is interesting that Belichick places a premium on multi-position players when filling the limited roster spots on his NFL teams.

Early stage, high growth companies have a similar challenge.  There is a need to maximize the impact of each new hire on your team.  Much like Belichick, Pro-ficiency has placed a premium on identifying team members that have multiple skills.

Creating simulations for our customers requires a unique blend of talent combining science, technology and art.  There are multiple members of our team that have strengths in more than one discipline.  This diverse talent pool allows us to deliver exceptional results for our customers.  Who would have thought that a college background in genetics and theater could be put to use by one of our Simulation Producers!

We also benefit from team members that have multiple skills in closely aligned areas like regulatory/legal, marketing/sales and finance/people.  We did not always set out with those job descriptions in mind, but rather were fortunate to attract those candidates during the recruiting process.

In the NFL, changing circumstances of the game can influence what talents might be required to win the game.  The same is true for high growth companies executing on new market opportunities.  Versatile talent can be a real asset when delivering on new innovations.

The Pro-ficiency team is always looking for great talent to deliver exceptional solutions for our customers.

Simulations Plus Has Acquired Pro-ficiency!