Purpose: Inefficiencies in the clinical trial infrastructure result in protracted trial completion timelines, physician-investigator turnover, and a shrinking skilled labor force and present obstacles to research participation. Taken together, these barriers hinder scientific progress. Technological solutions to improve clinical trial efficiency have emerged, yet adoption remains slow because of concerns with cost, regulatory compliance, and implementation.
Methods: A prospective pilot study that compared regulatory-compliant digital and traditional wet ink paper signatures was conducted over a 6.5-month period in a hospital-based health system. Staff time and effort, error rate, costs, and time to completion were measured. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare staff time and time to completion. A value analysis was conducted. A survey was administered to measure user satisfaction.
Results: There where 96 participants (47 digital, 49 paper), 132 studies included (31 digital, 101 paper), and 265 documents processed (156 digital, 109 paper). A moderate reduction in staff time required to prepare documents for signature was observed (P < .0001). Error rates were reported in 5.1% of digital and 2.8% of paper documents, but this difference was not significant. Discrepancies requiring revisions included incomplete mandatory fields, inaccurate information submitted, and technical issues. A value analysis demonstrated a 19% labor savings with the use of digital signatures. Survey response rate was 57.4% (n = 27). Most participants (85.2%) preferred digital signatures. The time to complete documents was faster with digital signatures compared with paper (P = .0241).
Conclusion: The use of digital signatures resulted in a decrease in document completion time and regulatory burden as represented by staff hours. Additional cost and time savings and information liquidity could be realized by integrating digital signatures and electronic document management systems.