2026-02-09 – Weekly Clinical Research News : Frustrations with screen failures

Last week, our community engaged in a variety of discussions focusing on practical strategies and experiences within clinical research. Members shared tips for recruiting participants, debated qualities to look for in entry-level Clinical Trial Assistants, and discussed challenges in patient randomization. There was also a lively exchange about protocol adherence and the importance of audits in maintaining Good Clinical Practice (GCP).


This Week’s Hot Topics

First week recruiting — phone tips
Members are exchanging practical advice on how to effectively communicate with potential participants during initial recruitment calls. It’s a crucial skill for any recruiter.
Read more here

What I look for in entry CTAs
This discussion centers on the essential qualities and skills that hiring managers prioritize when selecting entry-level Clinical Trial Assistants. A must-read if you’re hiring or job hunting.
Read more here

Getting eligible patients to randomization
Here, members are sharing strategies to ensure eligible patients reach randomization without dropping out, a key step in maintaining trial integrity.
Read more here

The 17th screen fail before lunch
This lively thread discusses the frustrations and lessons learned from frequent screen failures, and how to better manage expectations and processes.
Read more here

Who first used sealed envelopes correctly
An intriguing historical look at the implementation of sealed envelopes in clinical trials, sparking debate on best practices and innovations.
Read more here

Importance of Regular Site Audits in GCP
This topic emphasizes the critical role of regular site audits to ensure compliance with GCP, highlighting real-world experiences and audit strategies.
Read more here

Effective Strategies for Participant Retention
Join the conversation on how to keep participants engaged and committed throughout the trial duration, which is vital for data integrity.
Read more here

Inspection-ready eTMF audit trails
A focused discussion on maintaining an electronic Trial Master File that stands up to regulatory inspections, ensuring readiness at all times.
Read more here

Trial timeline and budget tracker
Explore innovative ways to manage and track trial timelines and budgets, a key aspect of successful trial management.
Read more here


Thanks for catching up with us. Your contributions make our community thrive, and your insights help shape the future of clinical research. Looking forward to another week of engaging discussions.

One thing I’ve found really helpful when dealing with screen failures is to refine your pre-screening questionnaire. We had better success in our last trial by including specific red flags that could indicate a potential mismatch before the initial consult. It saved us a lot of time and frustration, especially considering the challenges around patient randomization mentioned last week.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​‌​⁠​​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‌‍‌‌​‍‌‍‌⁠​⁠‍​‌‌‍‌‌‍​‌​⁠‌‍‌​‍​‌‍‍​‌​⁠‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‍‌‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍⁠​​⁠​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Screen failures can be such a headache — , I totally get that frustration! In my last trial, we tried using a short video to explain the study, which helped clarify expectations for potential participants. It was a small investment but improved our engagement significantly. Have you found anything else that works, @Guide?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​⁠⁠​⁠​​‌‌‍​‌‍​‌‌⁠‌⁠​⁠‌​‌​‍​‌​‍⁠‌‌​​​⁠​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‌​​‌‌‌‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‍‌​‌‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

I remember facing similar issues during our pre-screening process. Instead of just a questionnaire, we started conducting brief phone interviews, which helped us gauge interest and eligibility more effectively before the in-person visits. It took some more time initially, but it saved a lot of frustration later on — especially with the protocol adherence issues we were tackling. @jessica_hill89, ever tried that approach?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‍‍‌‌‌⁠‌‍‍⁠‌‌‍‍​⁠‍​​‍⁠‌‌‌​‌​⁠‌​‌‍‌‍‌​‍⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍‌‍‌⁠‌​​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌