A site network runs on documents that were never meant to be read together: feasibility questionnaires answered under deadline, site capability profiles that drift out of date, close-out reports filed and forgotten, SOPs that govern decisions nobody rereads, and vendor agreements with terms only one person remembers. Every new protocol asks the same questions of that pile.
The questions that keep coming back
- Can we run this protocol, and at which sites?
- Which investigators have experience in this indication and this population?
- What did we commit to on enrollment last time, and did we hit it?
- Which sites have the equipment this protocol needs, and which vendor covers what we lack?
- What does our SOP say about accepting a study like this, and which version is current?
What happens to your files
Upload the feasibility responses, site profiles, close-out reports, SOPs, and vendor agreements you already have, as they are. Desk reads them and keeps track of what a sponsor asks about: every study and which site ran it, who the investigator and coordinator were, what enrollment was promised and what was delivered, what monitoring found, which equipment each site has and which vendor covers what it lacks, and which version of each SOP is current. When five documents mention the same study or the same investigator, Desk knows they are one study and one person, so the history is complete rather than scattered across folders. Nothing is re-entered. The next request is answered from what the network already wrote down.
Questions Desk answers well here
"Which sites have run a phase 2 study in this indication with more than twenty enrolled?" finds the studies that match and the sites that ran them. "Which investigators have led a paired-biopsy study?" finds those investigators and shows the CV and close-out that support each. "What did the committee decide on the last request from this sponsor, and under which rule?" returns the decision, the rule it cited, and the quote.
Routines worth setting up first
- When a feasibility request arrives: matching past studies, investigators with relevant experience, and any enrollment commitments we missed with that sponsor.
- Every Monday: open feasibility requests and their committee status.
- Monthly: sites whose enrollment on active studies is behind commitment, with the source figures.
What to upload first
Site capability profiles, the last two years of feasibility responses, close-out reports, and the current SOPs. Add investigator CVs so experience questions resolve to people, and vendor agreements so capability gaps can be answered with who covers them.
How Desk helps
Desk answers a sponsor from what the network already knows.
- Feasibility responses, site profiles, close-outs, SOPs, and vendor agreements become studies, sites, investigators, commitments, issues, and current rules, all cited.
- Experience, equipment, and enrollment history are filters, not phone calls; the current SOP version is always the one Desk quotes.
- Routines assemble the matching history when a request arrives and flag enrollment behind commitment weekly.
Thinking about how this would work for your team?
Let’s chatKeep reading
"Have we done this before?" is the most expensive question in your company
It gets asked a dozen times a week, it is almost always answerable from files you already have, and the answer usually arrives too late to matter.
Read more →Tribal knowledge: what it costs and how to capture it without a reorg
The knowledge that walks out the door is rarely written nowhere. It is written somewhere unfindable. The fix is not asking people to document more.
Read more →