The SCRS Cut 25 initiative set a clear target: reduce clinical trial site training burdenby 25%. Not by cutting corners. Not by skipping critical content. But by rethinking how training is designed, delivered, and tracked.
Every clinical operations professional already knows site training is broken and we have lost the plot. The model most of the industry still relies on—a one-time live session, a stack of PDFs, a generic LMS that sites access through yet another login weeks or months before sites see a patient—was designed for a different era.
In that era, protocols were simpler, site turnover was less frequent, and there were fewer systems to maintain. The main goal of training focused on enabling sites to conduct the study as intended, with fewer protocol deviations. Secondary to that was to demonstrate to regulators that "sites were trained."
That era is long gone. But the secondary purpose remains, albeit as the expense of the primary one: quality conduct.
Site staff turnover rates have soared, while the average tenure of a clinical research professional is only 1.5 to 2 years. That means the person you trained six months ago may already be gone, and the person who replaced them is learning your protocol on their first patients.
Additionally, site staff are working on multiple studies. On any given day, they must switch between a variety of sponsors and a variety of visits. Based on the site training paradigm of today, it's a challenge to remember how to conduct visit 12 from Sponsor A at 9 am, then visit 3 from Sponsor B at 11 am, and visit 56 at 2 pm from Sponsor C.
This isn’t a training problem, but rather an operational crisis disguised as one. Read on to learn:
The SCRS Site Technology Landscape Survey validated what sites have been saying for years about training burden. Forty percent of sites spend up to 15 hours per month per trial on technology training alone. A quarter of sites are spending up to 20 hours or more. And what should concern every sponsor is how much of that training is basic and unhelpful for experienced staff.
Sites are spending up to 20+ hours per month, per trial on tech training alone.
These hours don’t exist in a vacuum. They come at the direct expense of patient care, enrollment activity, and study conduct. When a coordinator sits through a generic site training module about how to click “Save” in yet another system, they’re not screening patients, they’re not managing visits, and they’re not engaging with the participants who keep your trial running. When FPI is in April and visit 12 isn't until September, it's a poor investment of time to force a coordinator to sit through detailed, step-by-step training on visit 12 in February.
The system overload makes it worse. Sites today are managing 20 to 22 different systems per trial. Across multiple active studies, that can mean 50+ logins. Each new vendor and each new sponsor adds another training requirement, portal, and set of credentials to manage. And when some of these systems are familiar, sitting through the same training for multiple studies becomes a real nightmare.
The tech stack sites navigate daily is staggering, and every system comes with its own training requirements.
The industry has recognized the problem. But many of the solutions being deployed today are creating as many issues as they solve. Here’s why:
One-and-done training doesn’t account for reality. A single live training session at study startup or SIV wrongly assumes that every coordinator will remember everything weeks or months later, that there are no other trials to conduct, that no staff will turn over, and that the protocol won't change. As a result, >90% of sites effectively learn how to execute your protocol on their first few patients—through trial and error, not through formal training—increasing the risk of protocol deviations
Legacy LMS platforms are built on mistrust. Sites are typically forced to complete duplicate training and modules irrelevant to their job roles. What's worse, many of the latest tech features on these platforms over-index on policing learners to ensure they are "watching" or "engaging" with the training; instead, they should deliver training in way that is effective and respects the role and intelligence of the staff.
CRO-bundled training is built for the CRO, not the sponsor. When training is delivered through a CRO's platform, it becomes nearly impossible to eliminate duplicate training across studies. Since CRO platforms are inherently made to be cross-sponsor, their training platforms cannot address this issue.
💡 See how ProofPilot's Staff Training puts this approach into practice
The Cut 25 goal isn’t about removing 25% of training content. It’s about making 100% of training 25% more efficient by delivering the right content, to the right person, at the right time, through the right channel.
Meeting the Cut 25 commitment isn’t about shortening slide decks or recording fewer webinars. It requires a structural shift in how sponsors think about training. The new focus is to empower site staff to run specific visits on any given day, among all the other trials they are conducting, as efficiently as possible. Here are the capabilities that make it possible:
Role-based, study-specific training. A principal investigator and a research coordinator do not need the same training. A site in Tokyo and a site in Toronto may have different regulatory requirements. Modern training must be filterable by role, site, country, and study, so that each person sees only what’s relevant to their responsibilities. This alone can cut training time by 30–40% for experienced staff.
Multimedia delivery: documents, video, and assessments. Different people learn differently. A PDF works for some content. A 3-minute video walkthrough works better for complex procedures. An assessment confirms understanding. The most effective training combines all three, with the sponsor controlling which format is used for which content. This isn’t about fancy technology. It’s about meeting sites where they are and following adult learning principles.
eTMF integration for automatic compliance documentation. Training completion records need to end up in the eTMF without anyone manually uploading certificates. When training and document management live on the same platform, compliance becomes automatic. When they live in separate systems, it becomes another non-value added (or compensated) administrative burden, which is what Cut 25 is trying to reduce.
Visit-level guidance that extends beyond initial training. Training shouldn’t be a one-time event at study startup. A smarter approach delivers visit-specific guidance throughout the study. With this approach, when a coordinator is preparing for Visit 4, they'll have the relevant procedures, reminders, and protocol references at their fingertips. This turns training from a checkbox into an ongoing operational guidance system.
Sponsor-backed delivery that builds trust and efficiency, not confusion. When a site logs into a training portal and sees a third-party vendor’s logo, they’re not sure who they’re working for. They should log in and see their sponsor's brand, including the study name, the sponsor's colors, and a consistent look and feel across documents, chat, and training. Sponsors that espouse the principles of Cut 25–role based, platform training, JIT elements, easy to find resources, and so forth–make it easier for sites to work with them and empowers them to actually conduct the study as intended. Together, this builds trust and reduces confusion and site burden.
Cut 25 is not a site problem. It’s a sponsor decision. Sites can’t fix the training they’re given; they can only endure it. The power to change lies with the sponsors who choose the policies, deploy the tools, define the content, and focus on the central plot of quality conduct.
That means sponsors need to ask harder questions about their training approach:
If the answer to most of these is no, your current training approach is part of the burden Cut 25 is trying to solve.
Reduce site burden and enhance compliance with our innovative training solutions designed specifically for clinical trials. Discover how our approach can streamline training, improve efficiency, and support your sites in conducting studies as intended.
What does the SCRS “Cut 25” initiative actually mean?
It’s a commitment to reduce clinical trial site training burden by 25% without removing critical content, by delivering the right content to the right person at the right time through the right channel—shifting training from a compliance checkbox to an enabler of quality conduct.
Why is the traditional one-and-done training model failing?
High site staff turnover, multiple concurrent studies, long gaps between SIV and patient visits, and evolving protocols make it impossible for staff to retain everything from a single live session or static PDFs. As a result, most sites end up learning the protocol on their first few patients via trial and error, which increases the risk of protocol deviations.
Why do common site training solutions fall short?
One-and-done wrongly assumes no turnover, no competing trials, and no protocol changes.
Legacy LMS platforms often erode trust and waste time by over-indexing on policing learners and forcing duplicate, role-irrelevant modules.
CRO-bundled platforms are optimized for the CRO, not the sponsor.
What is required to cut training burden by 25%, and what should sponsors do now?
Sponsors need to redesign training around five capabilities:
Role-based, study-specific training, filterable by role, site, country, and study.
Multimedia delivery of documents, short videos, and assessments to match content complexity and adult learning principles.
eTMF integration to automate compliance documentation.
Visit-level, ongoing guidance with just-in-time, visit-specific procedures and reminders.
A sponsor-branded, consistent experience that builds trust and reduces confusion.