Addressing the Recruitment Bottleneck in Clinical Trials: The Role of Automated Patient Identification

Aug 13

Written By pk KAUR

Introduction

Timely patient recruitment remains one of the most persistent barriers to clinical trial success. Industry reports consistently indicate that the majority of trials struggle to meet enrollment timelines, and a significant percentage of late-phase studies fail primarily due to inadequate patient accrual.

For many small-to-mid size research sites, the problem is even more acute. Without access to advanced recruitment infrastructure, these sites rely heavily on manual chart review, which consumes significant resources, delays enrollment, and limits their ability to compete for high-value trials.

This paper examines the current recruitment challenges, evaluates existing solutions, and explores how to close a critical gap in the research ecosystem.

The Current Landscape and Challenges

The prevailing recruitment model at many sites still relies on manual EMR review. Coordinators and investigators must search patient records, assess diagnosis codes, check laboratory values, and verify medication histories against protocol requirements.

The scale of the problem:

Many trials enroll at a rate of fewer than one patient per site per month.
A substantial proportion of sites fail to enroll a single patient in certain studies.
Each month of delay in late-phase development can cost sponsors millions in lost opportunity and increased trial expenses.

For Sites:

Resource-intensive — manual review can take 8–12 hours/week per coordinator for a single trial.
Inconsistent output — criteria interpretation varies between staff, increasing the risk of missed eligible patients.
Operational trade-offs — time spent screening reduces capacity for patient care, data entry, and other trial-critical tasks.

For Sponsors:

Expanded site networks — to meet recruitment goals, sponsors often activate more sites than initially planned.
Bigger budget requirements — additional sites and extended timelines increase monitoring, startup, and operational costs.
Prolonged study timelines — slow recruitment delays database lock, regulatory submission, and product launch.

Technology as an Enabler

The industry has explored various technology-assisted recruitment models, including:

Centralized recruitment vendors that pre-screen patients and refer them to sites.
Patient registries and advocacy groups to reach targeted populations.
Integrated EMR algorithms that identify candidates using structured health record data.

However, these solutions often face limitations:

High licensing or per-patient fees make them prohibitive for smaller sites.
Many are designed for large health systems and require substantial IT integration.
Single-EMR focus limits usability for networks with varied platforms.

The Gap

The gap between sophisticated sponsor-driven recruitment systems and manual site-level screening remains wide.
Small-to-mid size research sites require:

EMR-agnostic solutions — capable of working across multiple platforms without custom coding.
Automated, repeatable processes — to surface eligible patients quickly and consistently.
Ongoing monitoring — so newly qualifying patients are captured during the full study period.
Cost-effective implementation — to ensure accessibility for community-based and independent research centers.

Without these capabilities, sites remain constrained by manual workflows, and sponsors continue to face inflated timelines and budgets.

How nephAnalytics Addresses the Gap

nephAnalytics was developed specifically for the operational realities of small-to-mid size research sites.
It is an EMR-agnostic, automated patient identification platform that applies an advanced matching and refinement process to site patient populations, producing timely, high-quality candidate lists.

Key attributes:

EMR-agnostic — compatible with multiple EMR systems without major IT projects.
Automated review and refinement — rapidly narrows large patient populations to those most aligned with trial needs.
Continuous updates — daily refreshes capture newly eligible patients.
Site-centric design — minimal workflow disruption and no requirement for additional full-time staff.
Regulatory compliance — HIPAA-compliant architecture and audit-ready reporting.

By bridging the gap between manual screening and complex enterprise recruitment systems, nephAnalytics enables sites to operate more competitively and sponsors to meet enrollment targets with fewer sites, smaller budgets, and shorter timelines.

Conclusion

The clinical trial industry cannot afford to accept recruitment delays as inevitable. Slow enrollment costs both sponsors and sites in extended timelines, lost opportunities, and inflated budgets.

Automated EMR-agnostic identification platforms present a practical path forward. They combine speed, accuracy, and scalability while remaining accessible to smaller sites.

nephAnalytics illustrates how targeted, site-focused technology can close the recruitment gap — improving operational efficiency for sites and delivering measurable value for sponsors.

nephAnalytics is transforming patient recruitment for research sites — and helping sponsors meet enrollment goals faster, with fewer sites and lower costs.

pk KAUR