This post is sponsored by IMARC Research, Inc.
In the realm of clinical research, two functions often work together to complement each other to create an additive impact on the overall quality and integrity of a clinical trial. The two functions are clinical monitoring and auditing. But how do these work hand-in-hand, and how are they different?
Many professionals working in the clinical research arena may not appreciate or understand the roles and differences between clinical research auditing and monitoring, two distinctly different functions. Or if they do, they may not understand that the two functions can have an additive rather than redundant impact on quality.
With the Rise of AI, What IP Disputes in Healthcare Are Likely to Emerge?
Munck Wilson Mandala Partner Greg Howison shared his perspective on some of the legal ramifications around AI, IP, connected devices and the data they generate, in response to emailed questions.
IMARC’s most recent whitepaper dives into these questions and takes an in-depth look at:
- The differences between Auditing versus Monitoring
- If I have great monitors, why should I audit?
- How monitoring and auditing can assure quality
Conducting clinical studies is a complex endeavor, involving oversight of clinical investigators with respect to the protocol, Good Clinical Practices (GCP), governing regulations, conditions of Institutional Review Boards and/or Ethics Committees, and institutional Standard Operating Procedures before, during and after conduct of the study. Clinical study data that are generated must be of the highest quality; data must be accurate and evaluable in support of marketing clearance/product approval and collected in a manner that protects the rights, safety and welfare of properly consented trial participants. Both monitoring and auditing can provide this oversight, albeit in different ways.
Download IMARC’s newest whitepaper: “Auditing versus Monitoring in Clinical Research Studies”
