Avis clients sur Clinical Ink
par Clinical Ink1 / 5 2 avis Écrivez votre avis !
Publié le 16/10/2019
Clinical Ink Review
Commentaires: The overall experience has been horrible. Our feedback about the Clinical Ink software usually is met with a very dismissive "solutions".
Avantages: I am not sure I like anything about the software. It should allow for all data to be kept on the tablet, but paper charts are still needed for lab requisitions, lab reports, and visit notes.
Inconvénients: The software is VERY difficult to use. The assessments are in an order that does not make sense, and thus makes it very easy for the site to miss inputting data. For example, the subject comes in and immediately does a Urine Drug Screen, supine and standing vitals, an ECG, then a blood draw. A better order would be for ECG to be first (since the subject has to rest before performing), supine and standing vitals, and lab work all in one section. In addition, the PI has to sign assessments sporadically throughout the visit. It would be beneficial to have the PI sign off on the entire visit at the end. The inclusion/exclusion criteria is also hard to use as it has the PI sign off before the review, and then has site staff clear the signature so that we can further edit the inclusion/exclusion for future visits. This is nonsensical and wastes time. The feedback we have received when voicing our concerns about the confusing nature of the visit outline as well as the inability to resolve queries and close our validations as been nonexistent. No changes have been made and we are met with the same feedback every time which does not help due to the software not being updated to match our needs.
Publié le 15/10/2019
Clinical Ink is the worst thing that happened to clinical trials
Avantages: I think eSource is a great thing when done well as demonstrated by Bracket / Signant Health, Medavante and several others in the industry but unfortunately, Clinical Ink misses the mark.
Inconvénients: Everything-- not use friendly, adds burden to the sites, compromises data collection due to difficulty to use the system, makes it awkward with patients due to glitches. Not to mention, we were only allocated two tablets for a staff of 5, making it impossible for more than 2 people to be working on patient charts. The layout is completely out of touch with how sites operate. Our staff agrees that this is the single worst implementation of technology we have ever faced in clinical trials. We would avoid studies using Clinical Ink.