Watch the Replay: The eClinical Command Center: Rethinking the Research Operating Model for AMCs and Hospitals
Most Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) and hospital-based research organizations don’t lack technology. They’re operating in environments where that technology was never designed to work together.
Over time, research operations have been built around tools that are familiar, accessible, and often free. Individually, these tools work. But at scale, they create a fragmented operating environment, one that depends on manual coordination, limits real-time visibility, and makes it difficult to manage performance across studies, teams, and sites.
In this webinar, Rick Greenfield, Chief Strategy Officer at RealTime eClinical Solutions, and Julián Orjuela, Technical Delivery Manager, take a candid look at the realities behind that model. The discussion explores:
- The challenges of disconnected systems in AMCs and health systems.
- The real cost of “free” systems – and when the status quo limits trial execution.
- Why reporting feels difficult in fragmented environments versus what operational visibility should actually look like.
- The questions enterprise research leaders should ask to determine whether their operating model is built for the demands of modern research.
More importantly, it reframes how leaders should evaluate their current environment, not based on the tools in place, but on how effectively those tools support enterprise-level execution.
Common eClinical Technology Myths
Despite rapid innovation across the clinical research industry, many organizations remain held back by long-standing assumptions about technology: what it costs, how difficult it is to implement, and whether it truly delivers value. These myths often stem from outdated experiences or incomplete information, yet they continue to shape decision-making in meaningful ways.
RealTime’s experts challenged a few of these misconceptions and shined a light on what modern eClinical solutions are actually capable of delivering.
Myth 1: “We don’t need a CTMS. We already have tools to manage clinical trials.”
This myth is a consistent challenge for research organizations of all sizes.
Many AMCs end up using disjointed tools such as REDCap for data capture, spreadsheets for enrollment tracking, shared drives for regulatory documents, and email for coordination. And while these tools work, they often require manual hand-offs and additional time spent on reconciliation.
“The real question becomes: are these tools working together as a system, or are people really doing the work to connect them all?”
In practice, that gap shows up quickly in handoffs over email, study status tracked in spreadsheets, enrollment and financials living in separate systems, and delays that are difficult to identify early. No single issue stands out, but collectively, it creates significant coordination overhead.
And that burden falls on the team.
Coordinators and investigators often become the connective tissue, manually reconciling data, managing timelines across systems, and keeping studies moving forward. Over time, that friction leads to inefficiencies, missed revenue opportunities, and even participant drop-off as delays compound.
This is where the role of a Clinical Trial Management System (CTMS) becomes clearer.
A modern CTMS acts as a central command center for trial execution. From managing the patient funnel and visit schedules to tracking financials and study progress, it brings critical workflows into a single, connected environment.
Importantly, it also reduces missed billing, improves financial visibility, and helps organizations capture revenue that might otherwise be lost in fragmented workflows.
Altogether, this creates a more streamlined, coordinated operation where teams spend less time managing systems and more time executing studies. As clinical research continues to grow in complexity, the gap between “having tools” and operating as a true system becomes harder to ignore.
Myth 2: “Free or generic tools save money.” or “The status quo is working.”
At first glance, this one makes sense. If the tools are already in place, or already paid for, changing can feel hard to justify. But as discussed in the session, the conversation shifts quickly once you look beyond software cost and into operational reality.
Free or low-cost tools often shift the burden elsewhere. Instead of the system doing the work, the team does. That shows up as manual reconciliation, duplicate data entry, delayed visibility, and a heavy reliance on individuals to keep everything aligned. Over time, that creates coordinator fatigue, slows execution, and introduces risk, both operational and financial.
“The systems themselves may be low-cost… but the coordination effort around them is not.”
And that coordination has a cost. Missed billing. Delayed invoicing. Revenue leakage that’s hard to track. Time spent maintaining spreadsheets instead of advancing studies. Even lost participants when delays impact the patient experience.
This is where organizations start to rethink the model.
A modern CTMS, plus a unified platform like RealTime’s essential Site Operations Management System (SOMS), isn’t just an added expense; it’s a shift in how work gets done. By centralizing workflows, reducing manual effort, and creating real-time visibility into both operations and financials, organizations can replace hidden inefficiencies with measurable performance.
The outcome is more efficient, coordinated operations that reduce administrative burden, improve financial oversight, and allows teams to focus on what actually moves studies forward.
Myth 3: “Reporting is time-consuming and difficult.”
For many organizations, the challenge isn’t a lack of data; it’s where that data lives and how difficult it is to bring together.
Across AMCs and research teams, critical information is spread across systems like REDCap, spreadsheets, financial tools, and internal trackers that require constant upkeep. Each system serves a purpose, but none provide a complete picture on their own.
So when leadership asks questions like:
- Which trials are underperforming
- Where is enrollment slowing down?
- Which teams are at capacity?
The answers exist, but they’re not readily accessible.
“Reporting becomes something that’s retrospective instead of operational with manual workflows.”
This often means pulling multiple reports, manually combining data, and validating across sources, typically in spreadsheets. By the time insights are available, they’re already outdated.
For AMCs and hospitals, RealTime-CTMS addresses this by centralizing data and standardizing how that data is captured and accessed. Instead of stitching together reports after the fact, built-in dashboards and reporting tools give teams instant visibility into enrollment progress, visit activity, and operational status, all within a single system.
Reporting becomes instant, consistent, and reliable, reducing administrative overhead while increasing confidence in the data being shared.
Myth 4: “We have a CTMS. We’re fine.”
For many organizations, what’s familiar is also what’s holding them back.
Yes, most AMCs have a CTMS in place. But across the industry, that can mean very different things. For some, it’s a legacy platform that’s been in place for years. For others, it’s a mix of systems, part CTMS, part CRO tools, part internal workarounds that’s all evolved over time.
And because these systems are already embedded, they’re often accepted as “good enough.” But as discussed in the session, the issue isn’t whether a CTMS exists, it’s how it’s actually being used.
As Julián Orjuela noted, there are many different types of systems labeled as “CTMS,” and very few are truly designed for the people using them day to day — investigators and coordinators. Some platforms are built for leadership visibility. Others function more as supplementary tools rather than operational systems.
That gap shows up quickly in practice: manual workarounds, limited financial visibility, and ongoing friction in day-to-day execution.
Many older tools or ad-hoc free solutions weren’t built with modern clinical trial needs in mind. The presence of a CTMS isn’t the standard. Performance is. The best-case scenario is to leverage a system that reduces friction, drives performance, and gives teams the visibility to operate with confidence.
“The difference is a system that enhances workflows and actually adds value to those workflows and efficiencies, versus something that is really just a data entry tool for visibility for upper management.”
If your current systems or workflows aren’t delivering that, it may be time to take a closer look, not just at what’s in place, but at how well it’s actually supporting your organization’s growth.
7 Questions Leader Should Ask When Assessing eClinical Technology
When it comes to evaluating both existing systems or possible new solutions, here are some key questions leaders should consider:
- Would this actually remove friction from workflows?
- Would coordinators naturally work in it or avoid it?
- Does it connect operational activity to financial outcomes?
- Can leadership see what’s happening right now, not last month?
- Does it help allocate staff effectively?
- Does it enforce processed or rely on people to remember them?
- Is governance automatic and auditable, or something your team has to chase?
RealTime SOMS: Your eClinical Command Center
The key takeaway from this discussion is clear: success at the enterprise level of clinical research requires more than incremental fixes; it requires intentional coordination.
Not just more tools. A better way for those tools, data, and teams to operate together.
This is where RealTime SOMS changes the model. SOMS acts as a true eClinical command center, connecting the core systems that drive trial execution into a single, coordinated operating layer.
Instead of data living in silos across CTMS, eSource, eReg/eISF, financial systems, emails, and spreadsheets, everything flows through one centralized environment. That changes how work gets done.
Study start-up, enrollment, visit tracking, regulatory workflows, and financials are no longer managed in isolation. They’re connected, so actions in one area immediately inform another. Enrollment progress ties directly to staffing and visit schedules. Study milestones align with regulatory status. Financials are tracked in parallel with execution, not reconciled after the fact.
This is what makes it a command center for site-based trial execution.
Teams aren’t chasing information across systems or relying on manual handoffs to stay aligned. Leadership doesn’t have to wait for reports to understand performance. Instead, both operate from the same real-time view of what’s happening across studies, sites, and workflows.
If your organization is beginning to question whether its current environment is truly enabling growth, you’re not alone. Now is the time to ask questions, challenge the status quo, and build a foundation designed for the future of clinical research. Talk to an expert to see the platform in action.
Watch the Replay: The eClinical Command Center: Rethinking the Research Operating Model for AMCs and Hospitals
Read More: What an eClinical Command Center (SOMS) Actually Changes in Clinical Trials
Read More: Why Integration Alone Fails in Enterprise Clinical Research