Clinical Trial Site Workload & Data Capture Assessment
Measures documentation burden, system usability, and data capture pain points among clinical trial site staff. Designed for site coordinators, investigators, and research personnel to identify operational bottlenecks and prioritize workflow improvements.
Sample questions
A preview of what’s in the template. Every question is editable before you launch.
In the past 12 months, have you worked on clinical trials at your site?
- Yes
- No
Outside of clinical trials, approximately how many hours per week did you spend on clinical documentation and data entry in the past 30 days?
- Less than 2 hours
- 2–5 hours
- 6–10 hours
- 11–20 hours
- 21–30 hours
- More than 30 hours
On average, how many hours per week did you spend on trial documentation and data entry in the past 30 days?
- Less than 2 hours
- 2–5 hours
- 6–10 hours
- 11–20 hours
- 21–30 hours
- More than 30 hours
Which tools did you use for trial data capture in the past 30 days? Select all that apply.
- Sponsor-specific EDC
- eSource platform
- EHR-to-EDC integration
- Paper source
- Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel)
- Other (please specify)
Please rank your top 3 biggest trial data capture pain points (1 = biggest).
- Protocol complexity impacting data entry
- Duplicate entry between source and EDC
- System performance/downtime
- High query volume
- Training/retraining requirements
- Scheduling/coordination conflicts
How confident are you that your site can meet sponsor data timelines over the next 3 months?
What type of site do you primarily work at?
- Academic medical center
- Community hospital
- Private practice
- Independent research site/SMO
- FQHC/Public clinic
- Other (please specify)
Thank you for your time. Your input will directly inform efforts to reduce site burden and improve data capture workflows. Your responses are confidential and will be reported in aggregate only.
What is your primary role in clinical trials at your site?
- Principal Investigator (PI)
- Sub-Investigator
- Study Coordinator/CRC
- Research Nurse
- Data Manager
- Pharmacist
- Other (please specify)
Overall, how burdensome was non-trial clinical documentation in the past 30 days?
Overall, how burdensome was trial data capture at your site in the past 30 days?
Which was your primary system for entering trial data in the past 30 days?
- Sponsor-specific EDC
- eSource platform
- EHR-to-EDC integration
- Paper source
- Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel)
- Other
Which of the following trial activities took the most of your time in the past 30 days? Please rank your top 3 (1 = most time).
- Source documentation
- EDC data entry
- Query management/resolution
- Visit scheduling/coordination
- Regulatory/IRB documentation
- Training/meetings
Based on your responses in this survey, please share any additional thoughts or feelings about site documentation or data capture.
How many years have you worked in clinical research (any role)?
- Less than 1 year
- 1–3 years
- 4–6 years
- 7–10 years
- 11–15 years
- More than 15 years
How many interventional trials did you actively support in the past 30 days?
- 0
- 1–2
- 3–5
- 6–10
- More than 10
Which systems took most of your non-trial documentation time in the past 30 days? Select all that apply.
- EHR
- Quality registry portals
- Prior authorization portals
- Spreadsheets
- Paper forms
- Other (please specify)
Thinking about your primary trial data entry system, how easy or difficult was it to navigate between forms and pages?
What one change would most reduce trial data capture burden at your site?
We'd like to understand your experience with trial documentation and data capture in more depth. An AI moderator will ask a few brief follow-up questions based on your earlier responses.
What patient population do you primarily serve?
- Adults
- Pediatrics
- Both
What was the single biggest barrier to efficient non-trial documentation in the past 30 days?
How easy or difficult was it to enter and save patient data in your primary system?
Which trial phases do you typically support? Select all that apply.
- Phase I
- Phase II
- Phase III
- Phase IV/Post-market
- Medical device studies
- Other (please specify)
How easy or difficult was it to manage and resolve queries in your primary system?
In which region do you primarily work?
- North America
- Western Europe
- Eastern Europe
- Latin America
- Asia-Pacific
- Middle East & Africa
- Other
How easy or difficult was it to generate reports or export data from your primary system?
Overall, how satisfied are you with your primary system for trial data entry?
What’s included
AI follow-ups
Adaptive probes on open-ended answers that pull out detail a static form would miss.
Attention checks
Built-in safeguards against rushed answers and low-quality respondents.
AI-drafted copy
Wording, ordering, and branching written by the AI — tuned to your research goal.
Auto report
Themes, quotes, and a plain-English summary write themselves once responses come in.
How it compares
We reviewed the closest templates from other survey tools. Here’s what they do well — and where this template goes further.
Why this template
- AI-powered follow-up questions dynamically explore patient concerns in depth, replacing shallow rating-only feedback with rich qualitative insight
- Academic-grade survey methodology with proper scale construction—no leading questions, no demographics-first bias, no unnecessary attention checks
- Full transparency: every AI prompt, model, and logic flow is visible to healthcare researchers for IRB review and replication studies
- Uniquely focused on site-level workload and data capture challenges—not just patient eCRF collection—filling a major gap in clinical trial operations research
- AI follow-ups adaptively probe coordinator pain points around data integrity, protocol deviations, and workflow bottlenecks in ways static forms cannot
SurveyMonkey
Post-Visit Patient Satisfaction Survey TemplateA well-established template with HIPAA-compliant features available on Enterprise plans. Offers expert-certified questions and CAHPS/AHRQ alignment, but limited to static question formats with no adaptive depth.
What it does well
- Expert-certified questions aligned with CAHPS and AHRQ standards
- HIPAA-compliant features on Enterprise plans with strong brand trust
- Multi-channel distribution via email, SMS, QR codes, and website embeds
Where it falls short
- No AI-powered follow-up questions to explore the reasons behind patient ratings
- HIPAA compliance requires expensive Enterprise plan—not accessible for academic researchers
- Static question flow cannot adapt to individual patient experiences or probe deeper into concerning responses
Typeform
Patient Satisfaction Survey TemplateTypeform's one-question-at-a-time UX creates a conversational feel, and they emphasize HIPAA compliance. However, the 'conversational' design is purely cosmetic—questions are still pre-scripted with no real adaptability.
What it does well
- Elegant conversational UI that presents one question at a time, reducing cognitive load
- HIPAA compliance and ISO27001 certification available on enterprise plans
- Strong integration ecosystem with 300+ tools for automated data routing
Where it falls short
- No AI follow-up capability—'conversational' is just UX styling, not actual dialogue
- HIPAA compliance requires enterprise plan pricing, which is prohibitive for many healthcare researchers
- No built-in survey methodology guidance or academic rigor checks for question construction
Jotform
Patient Satisfaction SurveyJotform offers the widest volume of healthcare form templates with HIPAA-friendly features and a strong no-code builder. Templates are basic starting points focused more on data collection than research-quality measurement.
What it does well
- Massive template library with 200+ healthcare surveys and forms for various use cases
- Free tier with HIPAA-friendly features available as an upgrade, making it accessible
- Strong form-building capabilities with conditional logic, e-signatures, and PDF generation
Where it falls short
- No AI-powered adaptive questioning—all forms are static with pre-defined paths
- Templates are basic form builders rather than methodologically sound research instruments
- No transparency into question design rationale or survey methodology validation
SurveySparrow
Patient Satisfaction Survey TemplateSurveySparrow differentiates with a conversational UI, sentiment analysis on open-ended responses, and HIPAA compliance. The word cloud analytics and anonymous feedback features are useful but remain surface-level compared to AI-driven probing.
What it does well
- Built-in sentiment analysis with word clouds for open-ended response analysis
- HIPAA-compliant platform with anonymous feedback collection capabilities
- Conversational UI with emojis, GIFs, and multimedia for higher engagement
Where it falls short
- No AI-powered follow-up questions—sentiment analysis is post-hoc, not interactive
- Word cloud analysis provides frequency data but not the deep contextual understanding AI interviews deliver
- No academic methodology validation or reproducibility features for research use
Qualtrics
Patient Experience SolutionQualtrics is the enterprise gold standard with HCAHPS-approved vendor status, real-time dashboards, and benchmarking across 500+ hospitals. However, it's priced for large health systems, and its AI analytics are 'black box' with no prompt or model transparency.
What it does well
- Official HCAHPS-approved vendor with built-in benchmarking across 500+ hospitals
- Expert-designed surveys validated by leading healthcare providers with role-based dashboards
- Comprehensive closed-loop follow-up systems and EMR integration via Health Connect
Where it falls short
- Enterprise pricing makes it completely inaccessible for academic researchers and small clinics
- AI analytics are black-box—no visibility into models, prompts, or logic for research reproducibility
- Implementation requires dedicated consultants, making setup time-intensive and expensive
Ready to launch?
Open this template in the editor. Every part is yours to change before the first respondent sees it.