Frequent Mistakes to Avoid When Designing Feasibility Surveys

Why Survey Design Matters in Clinical Feasibility

Feasibility surveys are the first checkpoint in clinical trial execution. Sponsors, CROs, and clinical teams rely on these tools to determine which investigator sites are capable of enrolling, complying, and delivering high-quality data. However, flawed survey design can compromise this entire process—leading to site underperformance, protocol deviations, missed enrollment targets, and costly delays. Regulatory authorities like the FDA and EMA have highlighted the importance of accurate feasibility assessments in multiple inspection reports.

Designing an effective feasibility questionnaire is not just about gathering information—it’s about ensuring the **quality, clarity, and relevance** of the data collected. Poor design choices can introduce bias, reduce response rates, and provide misleading inputs, ultimately affecting trial success.

This article explores common pitfalls in feasibility survey design and provides corrective strategies to improve accuracy, efficiency, and regulatory alignment.

1. Over-Reliance on Generic Questionnaires

One of the most frequent mistakes is using generic, one-size-fits-all surveys across all therapeutic areas and trial phases. This ignores the unique requirements of different indications. For example, asking only “Do you have imaging capabilities?” in an oncology trial overlooks critical aspects like:

• Type of imaging (CT, MRI, PET)
• RECIST or iRECIST measurement familiarity
• Archiving and transfer compliance (DICOM format)

Similarly, a vaccine trial might need cold chain logistics and mass-screening capacity questions, which may be completely irrelevant to a rare disease gene therapy study. Lack of customization can cause misaligned expectations and downstream failures.

2. Ambiguous or Leading Questions

Vague phrasing leads to inconsistent interpretation and invalid data. For instance, asking “Can you enroll patients quickly?” is subjective. What qualifies as “quick” for one site may differ from another. Instead, a better version would be:

“How many patients fitting the protocol inclusion criteria did your site enroll in the last 12 months for similar Phase II studies?”

Leading questions also bias the respondent. “You have successfully conducted previous trials, correct?” might trigger social desirability bias. Neutral, fact-based phrasing is key.

3. Excessive Length and Complexity

Lengthy surveys with poor flow reduce completion rates and frustrate site staff. In multi-center trials, sites often have limited staff availability, especially during active study periods. Surveys that take over 45 minutes are less likely to be completed accurately. Issues include:

• Redundant questions across sections
• Poor section organization (e.g., mixing regulatory and infrastructure questions)
• Lack of autosave or ability to pause and resume digital forms

As a best practice, limit questionnaires to 25–30 well-structured questions for initial feasibility, followed by site-specific deep dives as needed. Use digital platforms that allow intuitive navigation and validation.

4. Lack of Data Validation or Documentation Fields

Another flaw is the absence of cross-checks or request for supporting documentation. For example, if a site claims it can enroll 100 patients over 6 months, sponsors should request either:

• Patient registry screenshots
• De-identified electronic health record reports
• Recruitment logs from similar studies

Without these, responses are based solely on memory or estimates, increasing risk of over-promising. Platforms should include fields for file uploads, comment boxes for clarification, and warning prompts for unusual entries.

5. Ignoring Historical Site Performance Data

Failing to consider a site’s previous trial history is a major oversight. Historical data helps contextualize feasibility answers and filter out consistently underperforming sites. For example:

Integrating such data-driven benchmarking within the survey design significantly improves reliability and transparency.

Transition to Solutions and Best Practices

Now that we’ve identified major pitfalls in feasibility survey design, the next part will offer regulatory-aligned solutions, practical templates, and technology integrations to improve the quality of your feasibility assessments.

6. Neglecting to Capture PI and Sub-Investigator Details

Many feasibility surveys focus primarily on site-level infrastructure while ignoring investigator qualifications. Yet, the PI’s past experience, availability, and regulatory track record are critical success factors. A well-designed survey should capture:

• Number of trials conducted in the last 5 years
• Therapeutic area alignment with the protocol
• GCP training validity and inspection history
• Ratio of PI to concurrent active trials

Neglecting to gather such details could lead to site activation delays due to regulatory rejection of PI credentials or unavailability.

7. Overlooking Regional and Regulatory Context

Global feasibility surveys often ignore country-specific regulations and operational limitations. For example:

• In India, the CDSCO has specific rules regarding ethics approvals and compensation
• In Japan, feasibility surveys must include PMDA-specific compliance sections
• In the EU, surveys must align with EU Clinical Trial Regulation (CTR) timelines and document requirements

Not including such country-specific sections can result in inaccurate site feasibility outcomes. For global trials, it’s critical to tailor questions by region or include branching logic that triggers local regulatory queries based on country selection.

8. No Mechanism to Capture Feasibility Risk Flags

A robust feasibility survey should include logic or scoring that auto-generates red flags based on site responses. For instance:

Response	Flag
PI is involved in 7 concurrent studies	Investigator overload
Site has no GCP training in last 3 years	Non-compliance risk
Startup timeline > 90 days	High activation risk

Such automated risk indicators help feasibility managers prioritize follow-ups and site visits.

9. Lack of Digital Integration and Data Traceability

Paper-based or email surveys still exist in some trials, resulting in data loss, miscommunication, and lack of audit trails. Regulatory inspectors, including from the FDA, expect version control, date/time stamps, and investigator signatures on feasibility forms.

Surveys should be integrated into platforms like Veeva CTMS, Clario Feasibility, or other compliant digital tools. This enables audit-ready documentation and seamless comparison across protocols and regions.

10. Ignoring Site Feedback for Continuous Improvement

Finally, many sponsors and CROs fail to review site feedback post-survey. Sites may provide comments such as:

• “Questions are repetitive or unclear”
• “Form is too long for busy clinics”
• “Unable to attach required documents easily”

Incorporating this feedback into subsequent versions ensures higher response rates, better data, and improved sponsor-site collaboration. Sponsors should conduct post-survey reviews or pilot testing to optimize forms continuously.

Best Practice Recommendations

• Limit initial surveys to 25–30 critical questions
• Use digital tools with conditional logic and data upload fields
• Benchmark recruitment estimates with historical performance
• Customize by therapeutic area and regulatory region
• Include risk scoring and auto-flagging mechanisms
• Maintain an audit-ready record with version control and timestamps

Tools like Clinscape, TrialHub, and Medidata can help structure and automate these best practices into scalable survey systems.

Conclusion

Feasibility surveys are the foundation of successful clinical trials. Yet, poor design introduces risk, waste, and non-compliance. Sponsors and CROs must recognize and avoid the common pitfalls outlined above—generic questions, ambiguous wording, missing validations, and absence of risk flagging. By adopting best practices, leveraging digital platforms, and integrating historical data, sponsors can build robust, regulatory-aligned feasibility tools that drive accurate site selection and successful trial execution.