You’ve probably heard it all before: The clinical research enterprise has a problem with expecting new hires in what are often basically low-paying, entry-level positions to already have two or more years of experience with the position’s duties. It’s a talent acquisition model that does no one any favors, especially at the study site level where a healthy pipeline of new clinical research coordinators (CRCs) would go a long way to alleviating delays in trial conduct.
Providing an overview of, and advice concerning, where the industry stands in terms of addressing this issue will be Lauren Stockwell, Content and Engagement Manger with the Society for Clinical Research Sites, and Micki Le, Director of CRCs and Project Managers for SiteBridge Research, as they present on “Gatekeeping Practices and the Evolving Clinical Research Coordinator Role” at ACRP 2025 in New Orleans, La., next April.
“We are constantly having conversations about our clinical trials workforce and how it is evolving and about how turnover exists so heavily at the site level,” Stockwell says. “It’s not so much at the contract research organization or the sponsor levels where there are problems, but it’s at the site level where we find so much unnecessary complication that goes into hiring a CRC and retaining them. Understanding how we can look at that role more creatively from different perspectives is very important in today’s workforce situation.”
Stockwell urges site leaders and hiring decisionmakers to fight the gatekeeping urge and look at the CRC role in different ways that encourages onboarding people with transferrable skills from other jobs and offering them different career pathways or ladders within the organization. “It will go a long way toward painting a picture of growth at the site level,” she says.
A constantly rotating door of new hires and departures is not good for patients, it’s not good for the company, and it’s not good for the growth of the industry, Stockwell says. “The deep dive here is about how to functionally bring in people who are here to stay in the career and help the business grow, and not just looking at the CRC job as a stepping-stone to some entirely unrelated next job.”
It used to be that a person could go to work at a site as a CRC and spend 10 to 20 years there, Stockwell adds. “Now we’re lucky if we get a year-and-a-half, two years out of that person,” she notes. “For me, it’s a matter of understanding what we functionally need at the site level and what we actually need for the patients versus what we’ve copied and pasted into our job descriptions. We should consider what we’ve constantly looked for in resumes versus what our workforce truly needs in terms of skills and backgrounds and what knowledge gaps remain to be filled. Do we need somebody with two to three years of experience, or are we simply trying to write ourselves out of attracting some really cool and unique talent that we can then build on as required in their individual cases? Why not offer early-talent rotation opportunities that expose new people to the many different aspects of how trials work, rather than siloing them into one set of duties until they get tired of them and leave?”
Gatekeeping Practices and the Evolving Clinical Research Coordinator Role
Join Lauren and Micki at ACRP 2025 [April 24-27; New Orleans, La.], where they will provide a collaborative platform for discussions and dialogue regarding past, present, and future practices, and responsibilities of the next generation of CRCs. View complete schedule.
Breaking the two-to-three years of experience stigma starts from the top down in organizations, Stockwell says. “I think it starts with the sponsor, in all honesty,” she explains. “My theory behind the problem is that the sponsors need to allow space for actual entry-level candidates at the sites they support. It used to be if you had a pulse and an interest in medicine, you could join the clinical trials field and go far, but now it has become so much more secluded as a career and so much more difficult to get into. We’re very, very quick to be on the cutting edge of medicine, but we’re not very quick to change our hiring practices.”
Having to train a new hire, no matter how much experience they come with, shouldn’t be viewed as an impediment to making that hire, Stockwell adds. “We should be building up new staff not just for their sake, but to show the whole organization the value that we see in our workforce. It speaks to the effort we’re willing to put into seeing that they can thrive in their new duties, and that they can pursue a career pathway that allows them to concentrate on their strongest skills and the kinds of things they like to do most.”
Author: Gary Cramer
