The short version, for whoever signs.
Coordinator hours are what limit your research programme, and demand usually isn't the problem. This lowers what each study costs to deliver, so the team you already have can carry more of them. Everything below is on one page, and you can forward it.
The problem, without the jargon.
When a patient on a trial has a side effect, someone at your site has to find it in the record, rate how severe it is against a national scale, decide which drug caused it, and defend that answer to the sponsor months later.
That work is done by coordinators. They’re hard to hire, they take six to twelve months to reach full speed, and turnover has run 35 to 61% a year since 2020. Every hour they spend on this is an hour not spent opening the next study.
Sources: AACI 2022 CTO Staff Retention Task Force.
What it does, in one paragraph.
Burna reads the note your clinician already wrote, finds the events, rates each one, decides which drug is implicated, and shows the line in the record behind every answer. Your coordinator reviews a page instead of building one.
Your investigator still signs. Nothing reaches a sponsor that a qualified clinician has not approved, and that boundary is built in rather than promised.
What changes for the organisation.
Cost first: each study costs less to deliver, and the fee sits in the study contract the way your other research systems already do, so the trial that needs it also funds it.
Then capacity. Nebraska Hematology Oncology is physician owned and went from no trials in 2024 to nearly fifty active. The constraint on a programme like that is coordinator hours, and this is what moves it.
There’s a quality argument too, and your team will make it better than we can: the same event graded the same way across every site, with the reasoning attached, so the query that arrives six weeks later is already answered.
What it costs.
One rate: $10 for each clinical trial visit processed, however many events that visit produces. Every customer pays the same rate, whatever their size.
An annual subscription includes a block of visits at that rate, so every subscription dollar comes back to you as work done. It doesn't sit on top of your usage. Your cost is predictable from your own trial calendar before the year starts.
What we're not claiming.
We’re not claiming to grade better than your investigators. Their judgement is the thing being equipped, not replaced, and we can’t evidence a comparison until our concordance study reads out.
That study is running with Mayo Clinic Platform_Accelerate, 1,600 cases across three campuses against an adjudicated two-clinician reference panel, and it reports in December 2026. Until then the design is public and the results stay embargoed.
What this asks of you.
A decision to evaluate, and someone senior enough to sponsor it. In our experience that second part is the one that matters: the clinical side sees the value quickly, and the work then waits behind a technology review that nobody has asked to prioritise.
Your technology team will have real questions and they deserve real answers, so we wrote their page separately.
The page to forward to them