An exploration of quality gaps in SDTM implementation activities and ideas on how to address these gaps through appropriate resourcing Dianne Weatherall:

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dimitri Kutsenko (Entimo AG)
Advertisements

CDISC Open Source and low-cost Solutions
Recall The Team Skills 1. Analyzing the Problem (with 5 steps) 1.Gain agreement on the problem definition. 2.Understand the root causes 3.Identify the.
SSE system Management and Evaluation System, based on the obtained results.
A Coherent and Practical End-to-End Metadata Strategy using Existing Standards and Tools for Clinical Research Stephane AUGER Danone Research, FRANCE.
Protocol Author Process People Technology
What’s New with CDISC Wayne R. Kubick CDISC CTO.
An exploration of quality gaps in SDTM implementation activities and ideas on how to address these gaps through appropriate resourcing Dianne Weatherall:
The Importance of CDASH
SUCCESSFULLY EMBRACING CHANGES TO CDISC STANDARDS Dr. Elke Sennewald Director, Biometrics Operating Standards Group.
Kendle Implementation of Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization Dr Elke Sennewald Kendle 9th German CDISC User Group Meeting Berlin, 28 September.
How to Build a Better Business Case By Kate Gwynne, CBAP, CSM.
CONFIDENTIAL Integration of SDTM File Creation into Study Analysis: A Practical Approach Anna Kunina, Edzel Cabanero, Efim Dynin, Lindley Frahm 04Apr2008.
What are competencies – some definitions ……… Competencies are the characteristics of an employee that lead to the demonstration of skills & abilities,
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Accenture Accelerated R&D Standards Metadata Management – version control and its governance Kevin Lee CDISC NJ Meeting at 01/28/2015 We help our Clients.
The company of specialists. What are the global trends that we are seeing in Statistics and Programming? How does this impact our roles?
Contents Integrating clinical trial data Working with CROs
Implementation of a harmonized, report-friendly SDTM and ADaM Data Flow General by Marie-Rose Peltier Experience by Marie Fournier Groupe Utilisateurs.
CDISC Implementation Strategies: Lessons Learned & Future Directions MBC Biostats & Data Management Committee 12 March 2008 Kathleen Greene & A. Brooke.
Vertex and CDISC / MBC / 12March Vertex and CDISC Accomplishments and Strategy 12 March 2008 Lynn Anderson Associate Director Statistical Programming/Biometrics.
CDASh : A Primer and Guide to Implementation
MODULE B: Case Report Forms Jane Fendl & Denise Thwing April 7, Version: Final 07-Apr-2010.
RCRIM Projects: Protocol Representation and CDISC Message(s) January 2007.
Implementation of CDISC Standards at Nycomed PhUSE, Basel (19-21 October 2009) Nycomed GmbH, Dr. B Traub CDISC Implementation at Nycomed.
CDASH – SDTM Mapping Kurt Hellstern
Systems Development Lifecycle Analysis. Learning Objectives List the nine stages of the system life cycle Explain the system life cycle as an iterative.
E.g.: MS-DOS interface. DIR C: /W /A:D will list all the directories in the root directory of drive C in wide list format. Disadvantage is that commands.
CDISC©2009 February CDISC INTRAchange Carey Smoak Device Team Leader Li Zheng Submission Data Standards Team Member Thurday, April 2, 2009.
Database Management Systems (DBMS)
Paul Alexander 2 nd SKADS Workshop October 2007 SKA and SKADS Costing The Future Paul Alexander Andrew Faulkner, Rosie Bolton.
ICON CD04 - Ensuring Compliant and Consistent Data Mappings for SDTM-based Studies – an ICON Approach Jennie Mc Guirk 11 th October 2011.
Continual Service Improvement Methods & Techniques.
ADaM or SDTM? A Comparison of Pooling Strategies for Integrated Analyses in the Age of CDISC Joerg Guettner, Lead Statistical Analyst, Bayer Pharma, Wuppertal,
Information Technology Planning
Eyes Wide Open A little about us…..
Data Collection Techniques
A need for prescriptive define.xml
Building Block macro principle for Standard Program Library Design
Leveraging R and Shiny for Point and Click ADaM Analysis
Presented by Jenny Griffiths Data Standards Office, PD Biometrics,
David Adams Brookhaven National Laboratory September 28, 2006
Module 17 MARKET RESEARCH.
Accelerate define.xml using defineReady - Saravanan June 17, 2015.
Definition SpecIfIcatIons
Accenture Accelerated R&D Standards Metadata Management – version control and its governance Kevin Lee CDISC NJ Meeting at 01/28/2015 We help our Clients.
SDTM Work Stream Basel, September 2, 2008.
Monika Kawohl Statistical Programming Accovion GmbH
Business Processes and Business Process Management
VAT system in the EU – why the talk of the need change
Why use CDISC for trials not submitted to regulators?
Traceability between SDTM and ADaM converted analysis datasets
Azure Data Catalog Adoption Patterns and Best Practices
Quality Control of SDTM Domain Mappings from Electronic Case Report Forms Noga Meiry Lewin, MS Senior SAS Programmer The Emmes Corporation Target: 38th.
Research on FHIR Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources
The Two Most Common Types of Contemporary Planning Techniques
e-data Implementation Impact
SDTM and ADaM Implementation FAQ
CDISC UK Network Jun-16 – Welwyn
Definition SpecIfIcatIons
To change this title, go to Notes Master
SDTM and ADaM Implementation FAQ
Presenters Emily Woolley
Monika Kawohl Statistical Programming Accovion GmbH
Introduction to Data Management
The Two Most Common Types of Contemporary Planning Techniques
SDTM Work Stream Basel, September 2, 2008.
Joint Application Development (JAD)
Work Stream Templates Basel, September 2, 2008.
CLINICAL DATA ANALYST INTERNSHIP, AT DATAPLUS PHARMA SERVICES
Presentation transcript:

An exploration of quality gaps in SDTM implementation activities and ideas on how to address these gaps through appropriate resourcing Dianne Weatherall: 2013-04-11

GOAL Adoption of CDISC standards has led to: new processes (aCRF, metadata, programming) new responsibilities Goal: to discuss the “best” SDTM team to implement the new process

DEFINE THE PROBLEM Define what is wrong with the current setup

ROOT CAUSE OF QUALITY ISSUES Poll on the SDTM LinkedIn group: What is the primary cause of quality issues in SDTM?

ROOT CAUSE OF QUALITY ISSUES Lack of understanding of SDTM – WHY? 1 2 3 Lack of skills Lack of training Expensive It is complicated Too much room for personal preference Customer specific implementations Unclear process Too many cross-functional teams involved Companies are too silo’ed Lack of expert support It takes time and effort to become an expert

ROOT CAUSE OF QUALITY ISSUES Lack of understanding of clinical data – WHY? 1 2 3 Lack of data / clinical skills of teams Clinical data is complicated Highly un-normalized Database structures are often developed for data entry and clinician preference, not CDASH/SDTM standards The CRF changes over time Therapeutic areas have complicated study designs (e.g. cohort changes) Poor planning from the study design stage

ROOT CAUSE OF QUALITY ISSUES Non-standard data – WHY? 1 2 3 Legacy studies SDTM standards are relatively recent Customer specific requirements Customer specific implementations Customer legacy systems are not CDISC-compatible Therapeutic areas have complicated study designs (e.g. cohort changes) Poor planning from the study design stage

SUMMARY OF ROOT CAUSES Company silo’s  Lack of data skills of Biostats teams  Lack of CDASH / SDTM skills of Data teams  Time and effort to build expertise  Customer-specific  Poor study planning  Expensive  - join a user group!

CRITERIA FOR THE BEST SDTM TEAM Corporate structure Team scenarios

CORPORATE STRUCTURE Operations Biometrics Data Management Biostatistics *** Blur the line between DM and BIOS

BEST TEAM SCENARIO SDTM experts? Programmers? Biostatisticians? Data genius? Cheap? Available?

ROLES AND SKILLS Data collection: CRF design (CDASH / SDTM experts) SDTM mapping: CRF annotation/ specifications (SDTM experts) Programming: (SAS experts) Review: (SDTM + Biostatistics + Data experts) Data Management ----------------------------------------Biostatistics

TEAM SCENARIO 1 Advantages Disadvantages Continuity from aCRF Study CRF / DB Design aCRF Specs Programming 1 A Reviewer R1 B1 (domain A) B2 (domain B) Etc Reviewer R2 B1 B2 Advantages Disadvantages Continuity from aCRF Time consuming SME on certain domains Pressure (updates) Small team Inconsistent mapping across domains Boring Lack of continuity from CRF design Inconsistent metadata

TEAM SCENARIO 2 Advantages Disadvantages Study CRF / DB Design aCRF Specs Programming 1 A Reviewer R1 B (all domains) Reviewer R2 C1 C2 Advantages Disadvantages Consistent mapping across domains Time consuming Pressure (updates) Lack of continuity from CRF design Inconsistent metadata

TEAM SCENARIO 3 Advantages Disadvantages Study CRF / DB Design aCRF Specs Programming 1 A Reviewer R1 Team B (all domains) Reviewer R2 C1 C2 Advantages Disadvantages Consistent mapping across domains Resourcing issue (more people needed), particularly for a submission Less advanced tasks can be done by cheaper resources, freeing advanced programmers for critical tasks Lack of continuity from CRF design Expert group for support

TEAM SCENARIO 4 Advantages Disadvantages Study CRF / DB Design aCRF Specs Programming 1 A Reviewer Team Team B (all domains) C1 C2 Advantages Disadvantages Consistent mapping across domains Difficult to develop/find reviewer skills (for design and mapping) Less advanced tasks can be done by cheaper resources, freeing advanced programmers for critical tasks Expert group for support Continuity of whole process

Other things to consider Submissions Continuity across studies Consistency across studies Change control Bottle necks (reviewer team) ADaM / statistical output resourcing

RESOURCE CRITERIA FROM TO SDTM after design Just save costs Allocate availability TO SDTM during design Invest in expert team Look at continuity

THE BEST SDTM TEAM Expert Reviewer Team (CDASH / SDTM) Team Leader (Biometrics) CRF Designer aCRF / SDTM Mapper Team Programmer(s) *** Understand the data *** Understand the purpose

????????????????????????????????????? QUESTIONS