While there are many different size clinical research sites, competition becomes increasingly difficult for smaller sites with smaller amounts of employees, resources, etc.. In a recent article written by Gina Nesbit, a hypothetical site is created, Acme Research, which is a small site containing three employees, “conducting 25 outpatient Phase II and III studies of which 12 are actively enrolling.” Where larger sites have many specialized employees, Acme is finding they need a staff that is capable of covering the wide range of responsibilities demanded. Furthermore, small sites similar to Acme must be selective when staffing to ensure cross training. Taking that into consideration, Acme [created] a “highly integrated, flexible team that shares expertise and adjusts rapidly to changing demands.”
Nesbit also discusses the advantages of small sites regarding decision making and communication. She explains that while decisions within large sites tend to be lengthy and complicated, small sites can make similar decision within minutes because of open communication and teamwork. In addition, costs can be reduced in small sites because employees oftentimes flex roles, completing tasks quickly and efficiently; whereas large sites have higher costs for more role dedicated labor. Many times larger sites do not have an advantage when it comes to accessibility to subject populations. More often than not, large sites will have access to “thousands of patients with a given medical condition.” While larger sites can come in contact with more patients, smaller sites provide a more personal feel to their patients that larger sites sometimes lack. Altogether, there are benefits and handicaps to every site size. It is important that each recognize their strengths in order to operate using their full potential.
To read more about the advantages and disadvantages of small and large clinical research sites, reach the article in Outsourcing-pharma, here.