Tools in a clinical information system supporting clinical trials at a Swiss University Hospital

Background: Issues concerning inadequate source data of clinical trials rank second in the most common findings by regulatory authorities. The increasing use of electronic clinical information systems by healthcare providers offers an opportunity to facilitate and improve the conduct of clinical trials and the source documentation. We report on a number of tools implemented into the clinical information system of a university hospital to support clinical research. Methods: In 2011/2012, a set of tools was developed in the clinical information system of the University Hospital Zurich to support clinical research, including (I) a trial registry for documenting metadata on the clinical trials conducted at the hospital, (2) a patient trial assignment tool to tag patients in the electronic medical charts as participants of specific trials, (3) medical record templates for the documentation of study visits and trial-related procedures, (4) online queries on trials and trial participants, (5) access to the electronic medical records for clinical monitors, (6) an alerting tool to notify of hospital admissions of trial participants, (7) queries to identify potentially eligible patients in the planning phase as trial feasibility checks and during the trial as recruitment support, and (8) order sets to facilitate the complete and accurate performance of study visit procedures. Results: The number of approximately 100 new registrations per year in the voluntary trial registry in the clinical information system now matches the numbers of the existing mandatory trial registry of the hospital. Likewise, the yearly numbers of patients tagged as trial participants as well as the use of the standardized trial record templates increased to 2408 documented trial enrolments and 190 reports generated/month in the year 2013. Accounts for 32 clinical monitors have been established in the first 2 years monitoring a total of 49 trials in 16 clinical departments. A total of 15 months after adding the optional feature of hospital admission alerts of trial participants, 107 running trials have activated this option, including 48 out of 97 studies (49.5%) registered in the year 2013, generating approximately 85 alerts per month. Conclusions: The popularity of the presented tools in the clinical information system illustrates their potential to facilitate the conduct of clinical trials. The tools also allow for enhanced transparency on trials conducted at the hospital. Future studies on monitoring and inspection findings will have to evaluate their impact on quality and safety.