The Hidden Inefficiencies Holding Back Hospital Research
Feasibility surveys, fragmented portals, and long start-up cycles frustrate investigators and coordinators—while sponsors and CROs lose months. A hospital-owned, data-driven model can reduce admin burden and improve trial performance for everyone.
Hospital Research pain points (and why they persist)
Administrative overload and fragmentation.
Coordinators and study teams juggle multiple sponsor portals, duplicating the same information across static feasibility questionnaires. Professional bodies have called for streamlined, standardized site feasibility to reduce burden and variability (ASCO recommendations).
Limited visibility = missed opportunities.
Many community and non-university hospitals don’t have a living, sharable profile of PI expertise, prior performance, and capabilities. As a result, investigators with capacity and relevant patients are frequently overlooked during feasibility and site selection.
Benchmarking void and burnout.
Without structured metrics (e.g., start-up time, monthly accrual, retention), improving operations is guesswork—and turnover rises when teams must relearn fragmented processes. Survey evidence confirms sites feel increasing pressure from trial complexity, start-up tasks, and staffing challenges (WCG 2024 Site Challenges).
The system-level impacts (what industry/CROs feel)
Recruitment reality.
Across 388 NIHR-funded RCTs, only 63% achieved their final recruitment target, and 30% revised targets (two-thirds downward). Median recruitment was 0.95 participants per centre per month—less than one per site per month (BMJ Open, 2022).
Low-yield and zero-enrolling sites.
In oncology, a Phesi analysis of 173 trials / 11,826 sites found ~19% of sites enrolled only one patient, contributing ~3% of total patients; zero-recruitment sites were 27% of activated sites that enrolled ≥1 patient. Estimated cost for a 30-month, single-patient site: ~$130,000 vs ~$14,000 per patient at top-performing sites (Applied Clinical Trials summary of Phesi report).
Start-up delays that justify reform.
The UK’s National Contract Value Review (NCVR) cut commercial study set-up milestones by >100 days—about a one-third reduction—and the system is now targeting ≤150 days to activation by 2026 (NIHR news; HRA UKCRD page).
What hospitals report today.
Among academic medical centers, health systems, and community hospitals, the top issues are study start-up (43%), complexity of trials (39%), site staffing (37%), and recruitment & retention (34%) (WCG 2024 Site Challenges, hospital subset).
Why current HCO research tools fall short
Sponsor portals solve sponsor workflows, not hospital operations—driving portal fatigue and duplication at sites.
Feasibility questionnaires are static and repetitive; even industry acknowledges they’re costly, inconsistent, and labor-intensive (IQVIA feasibility white paper).
CTMS/EDC systems focus on data after activation; they don’t raise hospital visibility or reduce start-up work.
EHR data is rarely used to inform feasibility or trigger PI notifications, so eligible patients are discovered late.
A better way: the Hospital Research Center (HRC)
A hospital-owned, living research layer that reduces duplication for sites and gives sponsors reliable signals.
Living profiles
Auto-updated HCO and PI profiles (infrastructure, specialties, historical performance, start-up history). One setup, reusable across industry, academic and government projects.Data-driven feasibility
Secure, aggregate counts from registries/RWD and federated EHR queries—no identifiers—so feasibility moves from questionnaires to evidence.Smart PI notifications
Within hospital workflow, PIs receive criteria-matched alerts (study-appropriate, privacy-preserving). Patients stay inside HCO-controlled systems.Collaborative workrooms
Contracting checklists, training, ethics submissions, and sponsor-shared artifacts under HCO control—reducing email/portal sprawl.
Why this matters now.
Oncology sites have expanded ~50% globally in recent years, yet performance remains uneven and top sites are saturated (Phesi global analysis; Phesi 2025 Oncology Report). A hospital-owned layer can surface capable new and community sites—improving equity and overall throughput.
Expected impact of the HCO Research Center Solution (grounded, not hype)
For HCOs/Investigators: measurable reduction in duplicate feasibility/admin, clear benchmarking, and greater visibility to sponsors—especially for non-university and regional hospitals (see WCG’s hospital subset priorities). WCG
For sponsors/CROs: fewer low-yield sites, better selection signals, and shorter start-up (real-world proof: NCVR’s >100-day reduction in the UK). nihr.ac.uk
For patients: faster access to studies—including in community hospitals that typically miss out.
How Meplis helps
Meplis is working on powering an HRC-style layer: living site/PI profiles, privacy-preserving feasibility signals, PI notifications, and sponsor-shareable workrooms—owned by the hospital, designed to reduce site burden while giving industry the operational clarity it needs.
Next step: If you run research at a hospital (or select sites for studies), let’s discuss a pilot to quantify gains in start-up speed and accrual quality using your current portfolio.
👉 To continue the discussion, connect with our team to explore how your hospital could benefit.