Estudio de caso · PharmaAnonimizado por petición. Referencias nombradas bajo NDA.
Pharma · Global · 28 protocolos

Cadena de custodia de ensayos clínicos, probada ante el regulador.

Una industria farmacéutica del top 5 mundial necesitaba una cadena de custodia defendible e integridad en la cadena fría a lo largo de 28 protocolos de ensayo.

ESTUDIO DE CASOSupervisión de la cadena de custodiaPharma · Global · 28 protocolosRFIDPosición en directo · RFID28Protocolos de ensayo21 CFRParte 11GlobalDistribución
El reto

A qué se enfrentaban.

Cadena de custodia en papel

La custodia de los kits de juicio fue en papel y lenta de reconstruir para auditoría.

Riesgo de cadena de frío

Las variaciones de temperatura corrían el riesgo de perder lotes de alto valor.

Preparación débil para auditorías

La preparación para auditorías de 21 CFR Part 11 fue inconsistente entre protocolos.

Identidad del cliente reservada por confidencialidad. Las cifras reflejan resultados de despliegues RTLS/RFID comparables; sus propios números dependen del caso de uso, el entorno y la ejecución.

Nuestro enfoque

Neutral respecto al proveedor, orientado al resultado.

Realizamos registros continuos de temperatura, choque y ubicación con registros electrónicos sellados de cadena de custodia y 21 CFR Part 11, compartiendo eventos a través de EPCIS a través de 28 protocolos.

Cómo lo solucionamos

Lo que entregamos.

  • Registro continuo de temperatura, choques y localización
  • Cadena de custodia sellada desde el depósito hasta el lugar y el paciente
  • Discos electrónicos de 21 CFR Part 11 más compartición EPCIS
Resultados

El resultado que vio la junta.

28
Protocolos de ensayo
21 CFR
Parte 11
Global
Distribución
Auditoría
Defendible
Tecnología utilizada

La pila detrás

Registradores RFIDRastreadores móvilesEPCIS

Programme pattern for this vertical

Clinical-trial custody needs attributable, contemporaneous location and handoff events for investigational product. Hybrid barcode/RFID with controlled RTLS zones in pharmacies and clinics is typical.

Part 11 validation and role design dominate; accuracy is secondary to auditability.

Governance, risk and what we refuse to claim

Composite example only. Your payback depends on adoption, integration quality and exception labour — not tag unit cost. Named references under NDA on engagement.

We challenge any vendor who asks you to accept demo-day averages as production truth.

Implementation sequence and change management

Map handoff points clinic–pharmacy–courier. Enforce unique logins. Validate where Part 11 applies. Train site staff with short competency checks. Keep sponsor dashboards read-only to the SOR.

Drill missing-kit reconciliation under time pressure. Score vendors on attributable trails and e-sign capability, not map polish.

Buyer checklist, vendor challenges and engagement shape

For clinical-trial custody, prioritise attributable Part 11-aware trails over real-time map polish.

Buyer checklist before you sign: (1) written system of record for events; (2) acceptance tests with 95th-percentile performance under real interference; (3) integration owner named in IT/OT; (4) privacy or labour consultation path if people are tagged; (5) cybersecurity zoning sketch; (6) five-year TCO including batteries, spares, recalibration and SLA escalations; (7) exit/export terms so you are not hostage to a cloud tenant; (8) a pilot that can fail without political punishment.

Vendor claims to challenge in this pattern: brochure accuracy without production load; 'compliance included' without artefacts; ROI that assumes perfect adoption in 30 days; references that cannot be called under NDA; install partners who have never worked your vertical's overlays; shared support accounts; and any design that dumps locating onto a flat plant or clinical VLAN.

How TRACIO typically engages: stage-1 architecture and measurement design; vendor-neutral shortlist and RFP language; pilot acceptance criteria; then optional implementation oversight or programme rescue if a prior pilot stalled. We stay independent of hardware margin. Composite pages like this one exist so you can prepare the workshop — your numbers replace every planning band when we model payback.

Risk register themes that recur: mute fatigue on alerts; shadow spreadsheets reappearing beside the platform; battery logistics understaffed; master data too weak to support identity; works-council or IG review starting too late; and success declared on demo day before night-shift reality.

Document baseline windows explicitly: what you measured, for how long, which shifts, and what you excluded. Investment committees and auditors both punish fuzzy before/after stories. If your baseline is weak, spend two to four weeks fixing measurement before ordering anchors or portals. That discipline is cheaper than a stranded deployment and is the difference between a locating programme and a technology souvenir.

Training and communications plan: who explains purpose to operators, how often refreshers run, how contractors are inducted, and how successes are fed back without turning safety systems into league tables. Budget a champion network on each shift. Platforms do not adopt themselves. Where unions or works councils exist, share the purpose statement and retention rules early — surprise monitoring is how programmes die. Finally, schedule a formal gate review against the written criteria; celebrate a no-go if evidence is weak. Expanding failure is not delivery.

¿Podría ser este tu programa?

Dinos dónde estás atascado.

Thirty minutes on your use case, the numbers, and what would actually move your KPIs . Vendor-neutral, no platform pitch.

Habla con un asesorVer la lista de verificación de selección de proveedoresDescargar la guía del comprador

Última actualización: