We Filled Out Your Feasibility Questionnaire. Now What?

The questionnaire asks how many patients we can enroll, how quickly we can start, which equipment we have, and whether we can return everything by Friday.

Fair questions. Site selection is a serious decision.

But there is another question I wish appeared at the end: when should the site expect to hear what happens next?

Clinical trial feasibility should help both sides understand whether a study can work. When the conversation ends at “submitted,” the site has provided information without learning much in return.

I do not expect every submission to become an award. I would like the process to have an ending, even when that ending is no.

An honest estimate takes actual work

A useful recruitment estimate involves more than searching a diagnosis and copying a number. The team needs to consider the eligibility criteria, treatment history, visit demands, investigator availability, competing work, and the people who might realistically participate.

The difference matters. A patient record is not an enrollment commitment. An interested person is not automatically eligible. An eligible person may still decide the schedule does not work for them.

At WCR, where I lead operations, our approach to patient access starts with established relationships and available records, with eligibility assessed against the individual protocol. That is a starting point for a conversation, not a promise that everyone in a population will enroll.

When a site does that work carefully, feedback helps it make the next estimate more useful.

A decision can be reasonable and still need explaining

Sometimes the study needs a different geography. Sometimes enrollment projections change. Sometimes a sponsor already has enough sites with a similar patient population. There may also be concerns about a site's experience or capacity.

Those are very different outcomes for the site receiving the decision.

If geography was the issue, rewriting the recruitment plan will not solve it. If the estimate lacked support, the site needs to know that. If the program paused, the team can stop planning around an opportunity that is not moving yet.

I understand that a CRO contact may have limited information and may not be able to share internal rankings or confidential strategy. Nobody needs to disclose another site's details to offer a useful status update.

“We are still waiting on a decision” is information. Silence leaves everyone guessing.

Make feedback small enough to happen

I would start with a simple closeout message. Selected, not selected, on hold, or still under review. Add a broad reason where one can be shared, plus an expected next update if the decision remains open.

That does not require a long debrief for every questionnaire. It requires someone to own the loop.

• Explain what matters before submission. If a particular capability or population is essential, make it clear so sites can assess fit honestly.
• Give a realistic decision window. If the timeline changes, send an update instead of leaving the original expectation in place.
• Offer one useful observation. Where possible, identify something the site can clarify or improve for future opportunities.

Sites have a part to play, too. We should answer the actual question, explain assumptions, and avoid making optimistic commitments just to get through selection. If something changes after submission, we should say so.

Better feedback can improve the next study conversation

The benefit is not just courtesy. A site that understands why an estimate was unconvincing can provide better support next time. A sponsor that hears repeated questions about a visit requirement can examine whether its feasibility materials are clear enough.

There is useful learning on both sides if the process leaves room for it.

I would also welcome a short question back to the site: was there anything in this protocol that made the opportunity difficult to assess? That gives the next questionnaire a chance to improve instead of simply becoming longer.

Before we measure how quickly sites return forms, I would like us to ask how often those forms lead to a completed conversation.

What is the most useful feedback you have received after a site-selection decision?

Enmanuel CorvoEngineer. Site leader. Always learning.

I write about the practical work behind clinical research and what sites, sponsors, and CROs can learn from each other.

Share your perspectiveAll perspectives