Case Study 2 – Early Access Program

A sponsor company running a suite of early access programs discovered critical gaps in oversight, safety reporting, and HCP accountability — prompting a structured audit-led intervention.

25 Aug 2024

5

min read

Case Study

Problem Statement

A sponsor company has implemented a suite of early access programs. Upon investigation, due to internally raised concerns, it was decided that there was little information available to the sponsor regarding the activities associated with these programs. A handful of safety cases had been received. Health care provider (HCP) oversight of patients receiving the drug products was limited or missing.

Discussions were hampered by an absence of guidance regarding what should be expected from contract companies and HCPs involved. Key questions regarding informed consent, safety reporting, drug product management and the management of project records could not be answered.

Solution

In this case it was decided that a well planned audit should be utilised to identify potential gaps. An initial consultation was held, to include the sponsor and third party contract companies. Contracts were reviewed, controlled documents checked and responsibilities mapped. An audit scope was developed and agreed with the audit team, sponsor and third party contract companies.

Contracts were determined to be essential in this case. As the early access programs involved a HCP attestation to follow project requirements — without a requirement to report on progress — the contracts proved to be a useful tool in driving accountability.

The audit included an assessment of areas not previously considered, including pharmacovigilance, drug product management and more. Auditors were careful not to go out of scope and certain areas were deemed to be entrusted to HCPs and covered by the attestation signed.

The audit tested some assumptions, which were found to be flawed. For example, the assumption that HCPs were in receipt of all the correct instructions, most recent protocols or informed consent forms. It was also identified that there was no evidence that HCPs were actually able to report adverse drug reactions, or that they were aware of the need to do so.

Key Outcomes

Key outcomes included the development of formal processes, implemented through controlled documents and training:

  • Implementation of the testing of safety case reporting mechanisms.
  • Implementation of a drug recall test.
  • Implementation of traceability of HCP receipt of project instructions.
  • Implementation of HCP credential checks.
  • Implementation of key performance indicators at the third party vendor level.
  • Documentation of HCP project training.
← Back to Knowledge Hub

Ready to strengthen your compliance?

Talk to our team today about how 360 Clinical Research Consultancy can help your organisation achieve and maintain regulatory compliance.

Get in Touch

Latest Posts

Insights: March 2026 thumbnail
Insights

12 min read

Insights: March 2026

Welcome to the March 2026 edition of the 360 Clinical Research Consultancy Insights! In this issue, March Becomes the Implementation Month: What the UK’s Countdown Webinar Revealed

10 Mar 2026

Read More →
Insights: February 2026 thumbnail
Insights

12 min read

Insights: February 2026

Welcome to the February 2026 edition of the 360 Clinical Research Consultancy Insights! In this issue, FDA’s One-Trial Default Changes the Conversation: What February 2026 Means for Drug Development Strategy.

10 Feb 2026

Read More →
Insights: January 2026 thumbnail
Insights

12 min read

Insights: January 2026

Welcome to the January 2026 edition of the 360 Clinical Research Consultancy Insights! In this issue, UK Clinical Trial Competitiveness Becomes a 2026 Priority: Faster Assessments, Agile Regulation, and What It Means for Sponsors

10 Jan 2026

Read More →

Stay Informed

Subscribe to the 360 Clinical Research Consultancy Insights newsletter for the latest insights, case studies, and updates from our clinical research auditing team.