Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Resource-Based Relative Value for Clinical Research Nurses’ Workload

  • Clinical Trials: Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study was conducted to measure the relative value (RV) of clinical research nurses’ (CRNs’) workload based on the resource-based relative value scale.

Methods

A quantitative, descriptive research design was used. Data were collected from 70 CRNs in 7 clinical trial institutions using a structured questionnaire including time, technical effort, mental effort, and stress for each service. The RV of work (RVW) of each service was calculated by multiplying time and relative value of intensity based on “explaining the informed consent” as the reference service.

Results

The CRNs’ RVW was the highest in “preparing auditing” and the lowest in “paying compensation” among 55 services. Ten services showed higher RV intensity than the reference service, 26 services were lower, and 18 services were equal to the reference service. While the service that showed the highest and lowest RVW was the same in 3 specialties (oncology, cardiology, and endocrinology), the rank of the other services was not consistent by specialty.

Conclusion

The RVW derived from this study makes it easy to calculate each CRN’s total workload, so we recommend that the managers use RVW to assign the new services or studies to a certain CRN. And, we also recommend future studies using an objective method such as observations to calculate the time of each service.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ministry of Legislation. Korean good clinical practice guideline for drugs. 2016.

  2. Analysis of present condition of clinical trials in 2014 [Internet]. Seoul: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 2015. http://www.mfds.go.kr/index.do?mid=675&seq=26770&cm. Accessed February 10, 2016.

  3. Kang HS, Son HM, Lim NY, et al. Job analysis of clinical research coordinators using the DACUM Process. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2012;42:1027–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Present condition of clinical trials [Internet]. Seoul: Korean National Enterprise for Clinical Trials; 2015. http://www.konect.or.kr/datainfo/hyen2.htm. Accessed February 10, 2016.

  5. Jeong IS, Choi SM, Shon JH, Kim WO. Current status of clinical research coordinator’s employment. J Korean Soc Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;19:40–51.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kang HS, Kim OW, Jeong IS, Baik JM. The working conditions and clinical trial practice of research nurses. Clin Nurs Res. 2004;9:42–55.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jeong IS. Current status and strategies’ development of CRC’s employment. Seoul (Korea): Korea National Enterprise for Clinical Trials, Pusan National University; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Matsumoto K, Sumino K, Fukahori H, Kitaoka K, Kamibeppu K, Nagamura F. Stressor scale for clinical research coordinators: development and psychometric testing. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68:1636–1645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hwang YS, Ko IS. Role performance and related factors of the clinical research coordinator. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2011;17:524–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Milani A, Mazzocco K, Stucchi S, et al. How many research nurses for how many clinical trials in an oncology setting? Definition of the nursing time required by clinical trial-assessment tool (NTRCT-AT). Int J Nurs Pract. 2017;23:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. NCI Trial Complexity Elements & Scoring Model (version 1.2) [Internet]. Washington, DC: Denicoff; 2009. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/docs/trils_complexity_elements_scoring.doc. Accessed February 10, 2016.

  12. Good MJ, Lubejko B, Humphries K, Medders A. Measuring clinical trial-associated workload in a community clinical oncology program. J Oncol Pract. 2013;9:211–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Smuck B, Bettello P, Berghout K, et al. Ontario protocol assessment level: clinical trial complexity rating tool for workload planning in oncology clinical trials. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7:80–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hsiao WC, Braun P, Becker ER, Thomas SR. The resource based relative value scale toward the development of an alternative physician payment system. JAMA. 1987;258:799–802.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kahan JP, Morton SC, Kominski GF, Farris HH, Donovan AJ, Bryant DL. Issues in developing a resource-based relative value scale for physician work. RAND Corporation, R-4130-HCFA 1-77. 1992.

  16. Jacobs JP, Lahey SJ, Nichols FC, et al. How is physician work valued? Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103:373–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kwon WK, Kim JH, Moon HJ, Park YK. The Korean spinal neurosurgery society: are we reimbursed properly for spinal neurosurgical practices under the Korean resource based relative value scale service? J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2017;60:47–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Balasubramanian S, Kipps AK, Smith SN, Tacy TA, Selamet Tierney ES. Pediatric echocardiography by work relative value units: is study complexity adequately captured? J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016;29:1084–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim JH, Kim MA, Kim MW, Kim KS, Yoo CS. Development of a resource-based relative value scale and its conversion factor for advanced nursing practices in the national health insurance. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2011;41:302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Analysis of approved clinical trials in 2014. [Internet]. Seoul: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 2015. http://www.mfds.go.kr/index.do?mid=675&seq=26770&cm. Accessed February 10, 2016.

  21. Kim TE, Kim KH. Job status and job satisfaction among clinical research coordination. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2009;15:336–345.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Guideline for good clinical practice. 1996. [Internet]. Seoul: International Conference on Harmonisation; 1996. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R1_Guideline.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2016.

  23. Fowler D, Thomas C. Protocol acuity scoring as a rational approach to clinical research management. Res Pract. 2003;4:64–71.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kwon HK, Kim BK, Lee YH, Kim KS, Cho BK, Choi CH. The estimation on the dentist total work of Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. J Korean Acad Dent Health. 2001;25:214–220.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private Practice, Busan, South Korea

    Sangmi Lee MSN, RN

  2. Pusan National University, Beomeo-ri, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan, Gyeongsangnam-do, 626-870, South Korea

    Ihn Sook Jeong PhD, MPH, RN

Authors
  1. Sangmi Lee MSN, RN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ihn Sook Jeong PhD, MPH, RN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ihn Sook Jeong PhD, MPH, RN.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, S., Jeong, I.S. A Resource-Based Relative Value for Clinical Research Nurses’ Workload. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 313–320 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017731585

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017731585

Keywords

Search

Navigation