Building a protocol expressway: the case of Mayo Clinic Cancer Center.

Cancer Center Clinical Research Office, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 17.88). 07/2009; 27(23):3855-60. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.4338
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Inconsistencies and errors resulting from nonstandard processes, together with redundancies, rework, and excess workload, lead to extended time frames for clinical trial protocol development. This results in dissatisfaction among sponsors, investigators, and staff and restricts the availability of novel treatment options for patients.
A team of experts from Mayo Clinic formed, including Protocol Development Unit staff and management from the three Mayo Clinic campuses (Florida, Minnesota, and Arizona), a systems and procedures analyst, a quality office analyst, and two physician members to address the identified deficiencies. The current-state process was intensively reviewed, and improvement steps were taken to accelerate the development and approval of cancer-related clinical trials. The primary goal was to decrease the time from receipt of a new protocol through submission to an approving authority, such as the National Cancer Institute or institutional review board.
Using the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control (DMAIC) framework infused with Lean waste-reduction methodologies, areas were identified for improvement, including enhancing first-time quality and processing new studies on a first-in/first-out basis. The project was successful in improving the mean turnaround time for internally authored protocols (P < .001) from 25.00 weeks (n = 41; range, 3.43 to 94.14 weeks) to 10.15 weeks (n = 14; range, 4.00 to 22.14 weeks). The mean turnaround time for externally authored protocols was improved (P < .001) from 20.61 weeks (n = 85; range, 3.29 to 108.57 weeks) to 7.79 weeks (n = 50; range, 2.00 to 20.86 weeks).
DMAIC framework combined with Lean methodologies is an effective tool to structure the definition, planning, analysis, and implementation of significant process changes.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been considerable interest in the implementation of practices imported from manufacturing into healthcare as a solution to rising healthcare spending and disappointing patient safety indicators. One approach that has attracted particular interest is Lean management and the purpose of this paper is to engage with this topic.
    International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 07/2014; 27(6):482-92.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: After identification of an important research question and selection of an appropriate study design, waste can arise from the regulation, governance, and management of biomedical research. Obtaining regulatory and governance approval has become increasingly burdensome and disproportionate to the conceivable risks to research participants. Regulation and governance involve interventions that are assumed to be justified in the interests of patients and the public, but they can actually compromise these interests. Inefficient management of the procedural conduct of research is wasteful, especially if it results in poor recruitment and retention of participants in well designed studies addressing important questions. These sources of waste can be minimised if the following four recommendations are addressed. First, regulators should use their influence to reduce other causes of waste and inefficiency in research. Second, regulators and policy makers should work with researchers, patients, and health professionals to streamline and harmonise the laws, regulations, guidelines, and processes that govern whether and how research can be done, and ensure that they are proportionate to the plausible risks associated with the research. Third, researchers and research managers should increase the efficiency of recruitment, retention, data monitoring, and data sharing in research through use of research designs known to reduce inefficiencies, and further research should be done to learn how efficiency can be increased. Finally, everyone, particularly those responsible for health-care systems, should promote integration of research into everyday clinical practice. Regulators and researchers should monitor adherence to each of these recommendations and publish metrics.
    The Lancet 01/2014; 383(9912):176-85. · 39.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical research management (CRM) is a critical resource for the management of clinical trials and it requires proper evaluation. This article advances a model of evaluation that has three local levels, plus one global level, for evaluating the value of CRM. The primary level for evaluation is that of the study or processes level. The managerial or aggregate level concerns management of the portfolio of trials under the control of the CRM office. The third, often overlooked level of evaluation, is the strategic level, whose goal is encapsulated in the phrase, "doing the right trials, while doing trials right." The global ("plus one") evaluation level concerns the need to evaluate the ever-increasing number of multi-institutional and multinational studies. As there are host of evaluation metrics, this article provides representative examples of metrics at each level and provides methods that can aid in the selecting appropriate metrics for an organization.
    Evaluation &amp the Health Professions 08/2013; · 1.67 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 10, 2014