MEETINGS AND SLIDES ARE INEFFECTIVE FOR TRAINING SITE STAFF AND COULD INCREASE PATIENT RISK

While meetings are an excellent way to network with investigators and study coordinators, they are proven to be the least effective way to educate medical professionals and to give them the skills required to be effective at their jobs. We spend tens of millions on clinical trials, so you think study teams would use the most effective education technology…not so. Live and online meetings, together with videos and slides, remain the de-facto method of preparing site staff to implement increasingly complex protocols. It’s no wonder that protocol violations are so high and trial costs are skyrocketing.

According to Edgar Dale and dozens of supporting studies, we only retain 30% of verbal information.

Pro-ficiency is based on simulation-training. The same technology employed by airline pilots, surgeons, astronauts, and the military. Imagine if airlines started training their flight crews using meetings and slides!

Both the Pro-ficiency online platform and the simulation-based training content housed there are fully validated and audit-ready according to FDA CFR 21820/11 and ICH/GCP.

Pro-ficiency transforms your study training from an ineffective cost center to a powerful performance management system

• Use the best training for your sites and reduce costs while reducing error

• Play it safe by using validated systems and content that meet 21 CFR 820/11 and ICH/GCP

• Protect patient safety by validating site training content

• Train 100% of all site staff throughout the study

Predictive Analytics (real-time access)

The Pro-ficiency dashboard shows investigator performance in the training simulations across dozens of critical protocol and GCP metrics (the vertical columns). A blue checkmark indicates that a specific decision was made appropriately. If the learner makes a mistake, then a brief video – based corrective action is launched and they get a yellow icon. If the learner makes that same mistake again, they get a red icon. Lots of yellow icons indicate that, while knowledge gaps were identified, they were also easily corrected. Lots of red icons means those investigators are either not trying or they are having real problems understanding the protocol.

Based on the performance of the 2 sites above, which one would you trust more with your protocol and expect better performance from?