SignaltoPulsetoImpact
Book a demo
Home/Meetings/Investigator meetings
Investigator meetings

The people closest to the protocol problem are the most junior people in the room.

A full day, face to face, where site staff see the deviations and the screening failures first, and have the least standing to raise them with the coordinating investigator sitting at the front.

DurationFull day
AudienceInvestigators and site staff
AccessBYOD, anonymity optional
Book a demo See the platform
What makes an investigator meeting hard

Silence reads as agreement.

Site coordinators see the scheduling collisions, the eligibility ambiguities and the workarounds their site has quietly adopted. Raising any of it in a plenary means contradicting a principal investigator in public. So it does not get raised, and the same issues surface months later in monitoring visits, when the amendment is expensive and the recruitment curve has already flattened.

Moderated Q&A
37
How do you manage treatment in a patient with significant comorbidities?
Anonymous
24
What monitoring schedule would you recommend in the first three months?
Dr John Smith
18
Is there evidence to guide sequencing after an inadequate response?
Anonymous
What we use, and why

The engagement modules that carry this format.

Live Q&A

Anonymous submission from a personal phone, with upvoting. Fourteen people quietly endorsing a question about dose-modification thresholds is a far stronger signal than one brave person raising a hand.

See the module

Live Quizzes

A comprehension check the room experiences as a competition. Item-level results show precisely which part of the protocol did not land, segmented by site type rather than hidden in an average.

See the module

Live Brainstorming

Sites submit the workarounds they have adopted, discuss them, then upvote. Two hundred suggestions become the five worth writing into the next amendment.

See the module

Live Polls & Voting

Anonymous ranking of recruitment barriers, segmented by site type, so you can see whether the constraint is the protocol itself or one region's infrastructure.

See the module
How your programme runs

Four things we do that change the output.

01

We agree the escalation route first

Any suspected adverse event or off-label mention is held out of the public queue and routed to your named contact in the agreed window, preserved verbatim.

02

We brief every moderator on the protocol

Not just on the software. A moderator who does not understand the study cannot tell a duplicate from a distinction that matters.

03

We run the comprehension check properly

Presenter-paced so the room stays together, reported by site type rather than as a single overall score that tells you nothing.

04

We report item by item

The item everyone got wrong is the finding. Answered, parked and unanswered questions all reach the report.

What you get back

A documented record of what sites understood, what they could not say out loud, and which problems are systemic rather than local.

Other formats

We run these too.

Sponsored symposia90 minutes, hundreds of HCPs, fully anonymous on their own phones. The highest-stakes room you will stand in.Invited HCP meetingsOne to two days, personalised agendas from a code on the badge, and workshops delegates choose themselves.Advisory boardsTwelve experts in a room. The engagement is designed so you hear all twelve, not the loudest one.Virtual meetings & webinarsOne to two hours with video, a registration comms plan around it, and the session on demand afterwards.Internal pharma meetingsYour own people, where the honest answer is the one nobody gives in front of their line manager.

See Signal to Pulse running your meeting.

A 30-minute walkthrough with the team who will actually deliver your programme, not a scripted product tour.

Book a demo See the platform