A Tufts CSDD study of global CRA workload found that monitors spend about 41% of their time on site. Roughly 22% goes on off-site monitoring work, such as visit preparation, report writing and follow-up, 18% on travel, and the remaining 19% on administration and training (Applied Clinical Trials).
The off-site and administrative share is where a CTMS earns its keep. Most of that time is spent finding information that already exists somewhere, putting it into a document, and chasing what happens next. The six tasks below are the ones a CTMS should carry, so CRAs spend more of their time on judgement and site relationships.
|
Task |
Without CTMS support |
With CTMS support |
|---|---|---|
|
Pre-visit preparation |
Pulling history from reports, emails and EDC |
Visit history, open actions, AEs and consent status in one view |
|
Scheduling and confirmation |
Emails and calendar invites |
Confirmation letter generated from the visit record |
|
Visit report |
Written from scratch or an old copy |
Template pre-filled with site, study and prior findings |
|
Follow-up letter |
Drafted after the report, often late |
Drafted from the signed report, with due date tracked |
|
Action items |
Tracked in the report text or a spreadsheet |
Each action has an owner, due date and status |
|
Cross-site view |
Built manually for each manager review |
Compliance and timeliness by CRA, site and study |
Before each visit, a CRA needs the last report, open action items, enrolment since the last visit, adverse events, consent versions in use and outstanding queries. When these live in different places, preparation becomes a search exercise. A CTMS that pulls them into one briefing lets the CRA start with what needs attention.
Confirmation letters follow a standard structure: date, attendees, scope and documents to prepare. Generating them from the visit record saves time and keeps the scope consistent with the monitoring plan.
A template that pre-fills site details, study status and findings still open from the last visit removes a lot of retyping. The CRA's effort should go into describing what was found and why it matters.
Most monitoring plans set a deadline for sending follow-up letters after a visit. When the letter is drafted from the signed report and the due date is tracked, late letters show up before they become a finding.
An issue raised at one visit and still open three visits later is a common audit observation. Each action item needs an owner, a due date and a status that the CRA, the site and the study manager can see, with reminders between visits.
ICH E6(R3) describes monitoring as part of sponsor oversight and expects it to be proportionate to the risks of the trial (ICH E6(R3), EMA Step 5). For managers, that means seeing report timeliness, letter timeliness and action-item ageing across CRAs and sites without asking for a status update.
Cloudbyz CTMS is built natively on Salesforce and manages monitoring visits, visit reports, issues and action items alongside study and site records, with Cloudbyz EDC and eTMF on the same platform. Report templates, approval steps and timelines can be configured per study.
The Cloudbyz CRA Monitoring Copilot, built on Agentforce, is a read-first, draft-only assistant for monitors. It assembles a one-step pre-visit briefing covering visits, reports, actions, AEs and consent, points to the forms and subjects to prioritise for verification, drafts follow-up letters and summaries from signed reports only, and chases open action items between visits. It never advances status, sends or signs; every judgement and send stays with the CRA. Cloudbyz describes it as cutting visit preparation from two to four hours to under 15 minutes; actual time savings depend on the study and configuration.
Book a demo or visit cloudbyz.com.