Estudo de caso · PharmaAnonimizado por pedido. Referências nomeadas sob NDA.
Pharma · Global · 28 protocolos

Cadeia de custódia de ensaios clínicos, comprovada ao regulador.

Uma indústria farmacêutica global entre as cinco maiores precisava de uma cadeia de custódia defensável e integridade na cadeia fria em 28 protocolos de ensaios.

ESTUDO DE CASOMonitoramento da cadeia de custódiaPharma · Global · 28 protocolosRFIDPosição ao vivo · RFID28Protocolos de ensaio21 CFRParte 11GlobalDistribuição
O desafio

Contra o que eles estavam enfrentando.

Cadeia de custódia em papel

A custódia dos kits de julgamento era baseada em papel e demorava a ser reconstruída para auditoria.

Risco da cadeia de frio

As excursões de temperatura corriam o risco de perda de lotes de alto valor.

Prontidão fraca para auditoria

A prontidão para auditorias do 21 CFR Part 11 foi inconsistente entre os protocolos.

Identidade do cliente preservada por confidencialidade. Os números refletem resultados de implantações RTLS/RFID comparáveis; os seus próprios números dependem do caso de uso, do ambiente e da execução.

Nossa abordagem

Neutro em relação ao fornecedor, orientado pelo resultado.

Entregamos registros contínuos de temperatura, choque e localização com cadeia de custódia selada e registros eletrônicos 21 CFR Part 11, compartilhando eventos via EPCIS em 28 protocolos.

Como resolvemos isso

O que entregamos.

  • Registro contínuo de temperatura, choque e localização
  • Cadeia de custódia lacrada do depósito ao local e ao paciente
  • Gravações 21 CFR Part 11 e-records mais compartilhamento EPCIS
Resultados

O resultado que o conselho viu.

28
Protocolos de ensaio
21 CFR
Parte 11
Global
Distribuição
Auditoria
Defensável
Tecnologia utilizada

A pilha atrás dela

Registradores RFIDRastreadores celularesEPCIS

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.

Esse pode ser o seu programa?

Conte onde você está preso.

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

Fale com um consultorVeja o checklist de seleção de fornecedoresBaixe o guia do comprador

Última atualização: