Independent oversight of research conduct is essential to protect human subjects’ rights and welfare, educate investigators on ethical practices, enhance the ethical review process, safeguard institutions from federal regulatory actions, and maintain public trust in medical research ethics committees. Routine monitoring activities ensure studies are being carried out as intended, while prioritizing the health and safety of the participants. However, federal and foundation-funded projects may not have built-in processes for routine monitoring. To address this gap, Duke University created the Clinical Quality Management Program, which provides a robust framework for clinical research studies, including policies, procedures, and tools that allow clinical research units to effectively monitor without external oversight.

Protocol amendments have evolved from an expected operational reality to a defining factor in clinical trial performance, cost, and site sustainability. Across sponsor, contract research organization, and site stakeholders, a consistent message is emerging: while amendments are often necessary, their frequency, timing, and execution are introducing significant downstream inefficiencies. The evidence is clear: protocol amendments are now a system-level challenge requiring coordinated, industry-wide solutions.

An electronic informed consent (eConsent) working group has developed a high-level framework for defining and measuring the impact of eConsent usage at clinical trial sites. This article outlines key success indicators, relevant metrics, and practical steps the industry can take to begin assessing the real-world impact of eConsent on site operations. As eConsent adoption matures, this high-level framework can evolve into a more complex key performance indicator infrastructure.