Key performance indicators (KPIs) are an essential part of all clinical research. Sponsors use them to track enrollment, monitor safety signals, manage timelines, and keep leadership informed. But the sites responsible for collecting and reporting that data don’t always know why it matters.

Unfortunately, if teams don’t understand the purpose behind these metrics, documenting them can start to feel like busywork, which has real consequences. Site morale can be affected, reporting quality may suffer, and the overall sponsor-site relationship can break down. That’s why transparency is so important. This blog explains why site-specific KPIs matter and what sponsors can do to improve communication with their teams

The reality of running a research site

Most clinical sites don’t have large, dedicated research teams. Often, a single coordinator is managing patient scheduling, regulatory submissions, adverse event reporting, and data entry simultaneously. So research is layered on top of an already full plate.

When KPI reporting requirements show up without context, they can feel like another administrative burden rather than a meaningful contribution to the trial. For example, site staff may not realize that the data they’re entering at 5 pm on a Friday will inform a board-level conversation the following Tuesday. Sponsors who take the time to explain that connection can have a positive impact on their clinical teams.

The downstream impact of site-level reporting

Site staff often think their KPI reports go into a database somewhere, where they’re eventually reviewed by a monitor. However, the reality is much broader, as sponsor-level KPI data typically feeds into:

• Board and leadership reporting, where non-clinical executives need clear data to understand study progress
• Budget planning and resource allocation decisions for the current and upcoming fiscal year
• Protocol amendment considerations when challenges are appearing consistently across sites
• Staffing and monitoring adjustments, including decisions about on-site support
• Data lock and interim analysis timelines that affect the entire program

Realizing this scope helps sites see KPI reporting not as a task for someone else’s benefit, but as a direct input into decisions that affect their trial, patients, and ongoing participation.

Who else is watching the data

The IRB and Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB) both rely on complete, accurate data flowing up from sites. The IRB is responsible for ongoing ethical and regulatory oversight of a study, while the DSMB reviews safety and efficacy data at defined intervals and can recommend protocol changes or early termination if needed.

Neither body can do its job well without accurate site-level reporting. When sites understand that their data directly protects research participants and supports the study’s integrity, the purpose behind KPI collection becomes much more obvious.

Good data protects sites, too

One of the most important things that sponsors can communicate is that KPI data is there to help sites, rather than monitor them. When a site makes dozens of outreach calls and still can’t get enrollment moving, the pattern shows up in the data. Sponsors who are paying attention can step in with guidance, connect the site with peers who’ve faced similar challenges, or consider whether broader protocol adjustments are warranted.

Multisite research creates a collective knowledge base. A solution that worked at one site might be exactly what another site needs. But that sharing only happens when data is flowing and sponsors are actively using it to support the network.

What’s at risk when reporting falls short

There’s another, less obvious benefit to KPI monitoring: comprehensive reporting protects everyone’s place in the trial. After all, if sponsors can’t demonstrate compliance with oversight requirements, that failure can put individual sites at risk. And if a site loses its place in a trial, so do the patients who depend on access to that research.

Clear reporting also helps sites run more smoothly from a logistics standpoint. Knowing which patients are scheduled, who needs to be present, and what visit requirements are coming up reduces last-minute scrambling and makes the research process feel more manageable alongside day-to-day clinical operations.

When both sides understand the why, everyone wins

The sponsor-site relationship works best when both parties understand what the other needs and why. Sponsors who communicate the rationale behind their data requests build trust. In turn, sites that understand how their reporting contributes to the bigger picture are more engaged, accurate, and likely to speak up when something isn’t working.

Still, intentional communication must be built into a study from day one. If it only kicks in when something goes wrong, the confusion that’s already built up is hard to walk back. Taking the time to walk sites through how KPI data is used, who sees it, and what decisions it informs is one of the simplest ways sponsors can strengthen a trial from the ground up.

At Harbor Clinical, supporting strong sponsor-site relationships is central to how we approach trial operations. To learn more about how we can assist in these efforts, request a proposal today.

This blog was inspired by an article by Amy Bland, CEO of Curo Research, originally published in Clinical Leader.