Development and application of core competence assessment index system among drug clinical trial quality control personnel
- VernacularTitle:药物临床试验质量管理人员核心能力评价指标体系构建及实证应用
- Author:
Yu CHEN
1
;
Qingqing JIANG
1
;
Guo YE
2
;
Weiran MAO
1
;
Yuanyuan YIN
1
;
Mengjuan ZHANG
1
;
Pu SUN
1
;
Xia CHEN
1
Author Information
1. Clinical Research Center，Chongqing University Cancer Hospital/Chongqing Key Laboratory of Cancer Metastasis and Individualized Diagnosis and Treatment，Chongqing 400030，China
2. Dept. of General Surgery- Thyroid and Cervical Surgery，Chongqing Sixth People’s Hospital，Chongqing 400060，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
drug clinical trial;
quality management personnel;
core competency evaluation system;
Delphi method
- From:
China Pharmacy
2025;36(24):3023-3028
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To establish a core competency evaluation system for drug clinical trial quality management personnel in China and validate its application. METHODS Based on the scope of work， responsibilities， and role positioning of quality management personnel in drug clinical trials， a preliminary draft of the core competency evaluation system was constructed through literature analysis and expert consultation. The draft was refined through a Delphi method involving 17 experts who provided feedback and revisions， ultimately forming a complete evaluation system. The developed system was applied to conduct electronic surveys from March to May 2024 among 110 quality management personnel from 38 drug clinical trial institutions， comparing their scores on indicator importance and self-assessed capabilities. RESULTS The response rate of both rounds of questionnaire survey was 100%， with Kendall’s W coefficients of 0.256 and 0.277 （P＜0.001 for both）， and an expert authority coefficient of 0.946. The finalized evaluation system for core competencies of clinical trial quality management personnel comprised 9 primary indicators， covering individual professional competence， communication skills， implementation condition verification， informed consent process review， clinical trial execution monitoring， adverse event disposal， reporting and documentation， trial record examination， trial report auditing， and inspection of other tasks， and 107 secondary indicators. Empirical research revealed significant discrepancies between importance scores and self-assessed competency scores across 70 indicators among 110 respondents （P＜0.05）. Indicators with relatively notable gaps between importance scores and self-assessed competency scores included in-depth understanding of Good Clinical Practice （GCP） requirements （0.34-point gap）， familiarity with national and institutional clinical trial inspection priorities （0.24-point gap），etc. CONCLUSIONS The indicator system constructed in this study has good scientificity and reliability. Clinical trial quality management personnel demonstrate deficiencies in multiple critical competencies， highlighting the urgent need for targeted training programs to enhance their overall professional capabilities.
