Sponsors and CROs choose sites on evidence they already hold and rarely consult: past feasibility responses, monitoring visit reports, enrollment curves, close-out summaries, and the correspondence that explains why a site fell short. The knowledge is real. It is spread across studies, teams, and years.
The questions that keep coming back
- Which sites delivered on enrollment last time, and which committed and missed?
- Which investigators have run this indication in this population, and how did their sites perform?
- What issues did monitoring find at this site before, and were they resolved?
- Which vendors and labs have we used in this region, under what terms?
- Which sites should we shortlist for this protocol, and why?
What happens to your files
Upload feasibility responses, monitoring reports, close-out summaries, and site agreements from past studies, as they are. Desk reads them and remembers each site's record: what it committed to, what it delivered, what monitoring found and whether it was resolved, who the investigator was, and which labs and vendors were involved. A site that appears in a dozen studies becomes one history rather than a dozen folders, and the comparison across studies that nobody had time to make is already made when the next protocol arrives. Every number keeps a link to the report it came from.
Questions Desk answers well here
"Which sites committed to more than fifteen enrolled and reached it?" compares commitment facts with actuals across every study and lists the sites with sources. "What did monitoring find at this site across all our studies?" lists every finding at that site, each with its report. "Which investigators have led a study in this indication and enrolled ahead of plan?" finds the studies in that indication, the investigators who led them, and the enrollment figures, with sources.
Routines worth setting up first
- When a new protocol is approved: a shortlist of sites with matching experience, their commitment-versus-actual record, and open issues.
- Every week: active studies where enrollment is behind commitment, with the latest monitoring figures.
- Quarterly: sites with repeat findings, grouped by category, for the quality review.
What to upload first
Feasibility responses and close-out reports from the last several studies, plus monitoring visit reports. That is enough for site history questions on day one. Add site profiles and investigator CVs to deepen the "who" answers.
How Desk helps
Desk makes site history askable across every study.
- Commitments, actuals, findings, and outcomes are read off feasibility responses, monitoring reports, and close-outs into records that span studies.
- "Which sites delivered?" compares commitment with actual across the portfolio and shows the report behind each number.
- Routines build the shortlist for a new protocol and watch enrollment against commitment every week.
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 →