Quote from brad on May 13, 2022, 9:45 pm

Quote from OutdatedECG on May 13, 2022, 7:54 pm

As we continue to grow, I am wondering what other sites feel is the perfect ratio of CRCs to studies?

I've heard any where from 8 studies/CRC to 3 studies/CRC. 

I guess alot of it would depend on the type of study, for some studies sponsors may expect sites to enroll alot more patients. But just a general idea maybe?

Or is there a better metric to decide workload?

This is a great question and I'm curious to hear others thoughts.

I find it's really more of an art than a science. Depends on the studies, the revenue for each study and the strengths of the coordinators.

A lot of other things to consider as well. Do your coordinators do their own data entry? Do they do their own prescreening calls?

It's a toughie but that's part of the fun.

Quote from Guest on May 13, 2022, 11:44 pm

Quote from OutdatedECG on May 13, 2022, 7:54 pm

As we continue to grow, I am wondering what other sites feel is the perfect ratio of CRCs to studies?

I've heard any where from 8 studies/CRC to 3 studies/CRC. 

I guess alot of it would depend on the type of study, for some studies sponsors may expect sites to enroll alot more patients. But just a general idea maybe?

Or is there a better metric to decide workload?

We allocate different types of studies to the CRC FTE.

Since there is such a crazy array of trial types and complexities, its hard to have a fixed numerical ratio. Oncology trials take an insane amount of work where those little blood draw studies help to fill the time.

For example, for each CRC, we try to have 1 complex,  2-3 general, and 4-6 blood draw studies.  Depending on the CRC's expertise, that generally puts them at the optimal 80% productivity load.

 

 

Quote from Guest on May 18, 2022, 10:34 pm

Do you have a tool for calculating 80% productivity? A spreadsheet?