School of Medicine and Health Sciences Poster Presentations

Title

Improvement in investigator satisfaction after implementation of changes in the Clinical Research Unit: A quality improvement initiative

Poster Number

347

Document Type

Poster

Status

Faculty

Abstract Category

Quality Improvement

Keywords

human research, clinical trials, clinical research

Publication Date

Spring 2018

Abstract

Background: The Clinical Research Unit (CRU), within the Clinical and Translational Science Institute at Children’s National (CTSI-CN), provides specialized services to support clinical researchers at Children’s National (CN) and George Washington University (GW). CRU services include biorepository, nursing, study coordinators, nutrition, behavioral testing, and laboratory processing. The CRU predominantly serves CN investigators and would like to increase collaboration with investigators from GW. A 2016 survey provided information about CRU usage by CN investigators and assessed satisfaction with services. In response to CRU user feedback, processes were implemented as standard operating procedures including: new processes for scheduling, PK studies and protocol implementation budget development, billing, and revision of the cost structure.

Objective: We aim to determine if process improvements have increased investigator satisfaction.

Methods: Frequent, occasional, and non-users of CRU services received a REDCap survey in July 2016 (n=115) and December 2017 (n=131) assessing satisfaction with overall services, scheduling, billing, and CRU staff. Twelve questions used a 5-item Likert scale ranging from “Not Satisfied” to “Extremely Satisfied” and two questions allowed free text responses. Survey data was extracted and categorical responses were assigned a numerical value in increasing order of satisfaction (1=Not Satisfied, 5=Extremely Satisfied), reported by year as mean and standard deviation. Differences in the mean response over time were identified using Student’s t-test. Investigators collated free-text responses to identify salient themes.

Results: In 2016, 28.7% of CRU users (n=33) completed the survey compared to 34.4% (n=45) in 2017. Indicators of satisfaction improved among CRU users between the two survey time points. The greatest increases were found in areas where process improvements were implemented in the previous year, including responsiveness, scheduling, and communication. Of the 12 satisfaction areas, 9 had statistically significant increases in mean values (p<0.05) including the desire to recommend CRU use. Reasons for non-use and low satisfaction were primarily related to factors outside the CRU’s purview, or lack of knowledge about CRU services.

Conclusions: The process improvements implemented within CTSI CRU increased investigator satisfaction, and the survey results offer opportunities for continued improvements. These results indicate that GW investigators could also benefit from our services and we are hoping to increase collaborations with GW investigators.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Open Access

1

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 

Improvement in investigator satisfaction after implementation of changes in the Clinical Research Unit: A quality improvement initiative

Background: The Clinical Research Unit (CRU), within the Clinical and Translational Science Institute at Children’s National (CTSI-CN), provides specialized services to support clinical researchers at Children’s National (CN) and George Washington University (GW). CRU services include biorepository, nursing, study coordinators, nutrition, behavioral testing, and laboratory processing. The CRU predominantly serves CN investigators and would like to increase collaboration with investigators from GW. A 2016 survey provided information about CRU usage by CN investigators and assessed satisfaction with services. In response to CRU user feedback, processes were implemented as standard operating procedures including: new processes for scheduling, PK studies and protocol implementation budget development, billing, and revision of the cost structure.

Objective: We aim to determine if process improvements have increased investigator satisfaction.

Methods: Frequent, occasional, and non-users of CRU services received a REDCap survey in July 2016 (n=115) and December 2017 (n=131) assessing satisfaction with overall services, scheduling, billing, and CRU staff. Twelve questions used a 5-item Likert scale ranging from “Not Satisfied” to “Extremely Satisfied” and two questions allowed free text responses. Survey data was extracted and categorical responses were assigned a numerical value in increasing order of satisfaction (1=Not Satisfied, 5=Extremely Satisfied), reported by year as mean and standard deviation. Differences in the mean response over time were identified using Student’s t-test. Investigators collated free-text responses to identify salient themes.

Results: In 2016, 28.7% of CRU users (n=33) completed the survey compared to 34.4% (n=45) in 2017. Indicators of satisfaction improved among CRU users between the two survey time points. The greatest increases were found in areas where process improvements were implemented in the previous year, including responsiveness, scheduling, and communication. Of the 12 satisfaction areas, 9 had statistically significant increases in mean values (p<0.05) including the desire to recommend CRU use. Reasons for non-use and low satisfaction were primarily related to factors outside the CRU’s purview, or lack of knowledge about CRU services.

Conclusions: The process improvements implemented within CTSI CRU increased investigator satisfaction, and the survey results offer opportunities for continued improvements. These results indicate that GW investigators could also benefit from our services and we are hoping to increase collaborations with GW investigators.