SR SOFT LLC is an E-Verify Company

SR Soft LLC
← Journal

Clinical Data Management

Sponsor Oversight in Clinical Data Management: CRO, EDC, Labs, and the SR Soft Control Model

  • Sponsor oversight
  • CRO
  • RBQM
  • eTMF
  • SAE reconciliation
  • ICH E6 R3
Study documentation
The sponsor cannot outsource accountability. Only the work.

ICH E6 is blunt: the sponsor is responsible for the trial. Transferring CDM to a CRO does not transfer that sentence. The unique challenge is a network — CRO, EDC vendor, central lab, eCOA, IWRS, imaging core, DSMB listings — and a TMF that must prove you were watching. “Status green” is not oversight. A quality agreement that names KRIs, KTLs, and who escalates is.

Sponsor CDMCROEDC vendorLab / eCOAIWRS
Sponsor CDM over the four vendors that actually hold the data
SponsorQA agr.KRIEscalateCRO CDMQueryListingLock prepVendorsLabeCOAIRTTMFDMPDVSLock memo
Inspection-ready oversight loop

What we put in the quality agreement

Not a boilerplate. KRIs that match the protocol’s critical data. Query aging that distinguishes critical from noise. SAE recon frequency. Protocol-amendment lead time. Who can unlock after soft lock. Where the DMP, DVS, UAT evidence, and lock memo live in the eTMF — contemporaneous, not a dump the week before CSR.

Vials
Every sample has a vendor. Oversight is the chain.
  1. 01

    Vendor graph

    Named systems, named data objects, named owners.

  2. 02

    Quality agreement

    KRIs, escalation, unlock, TMF list.

  3. 03

    Central review

    Listings, not only site metrics.

  4. 04

    SAE recon

    EDC vs safety. Evidence filed.

  5. 05

    Amendment control

    eCRF and DVS versions locked to protocol version.

  6. 06

    Inspection pack

    A story QA can tell without the CRO in the chair.

Control model we install

We place a sponsor CDM lead who has sat through an FDA or EMA question on data integrity. We pair them with an EDC programmer and an SDTM lead so findings do not bounce. Fortune 500 pharma and emerging biotech buy that cell when the CRO is “fine” and the lock is not.

Where sponsor time should go

Default split after an SR Soft restage

The quality agreement as a control, not a PDF

KRIs, QTLs, escalation, unlock rules, TMF artifact list, SAE recon frequency, amendment lead time — if those are not in the quality agreement, you have outsourced accountability while keeping the 483. We write that agreement as an operating document. Central review reads listings. Site metrics are not enough. eTMF is contemporaneous. A dump the week before CSR is a finding.

yesnoQA agreementKRI / QTLBreach?EscalateFile TMFInspection pack
Sponsor oversight loop that can be inspected

We place a sponsor CDM lead who has been asked an integrity question. Findings do not bounce between CRO and SDTM because the cell contains both. That is the control model.

Map
If QA cannot tell the story without the CRO, you do not have oversight.