Clinical research coordinators (CRCs) play a key role in supporting the translational research enterprise, with responsibilities encompassing tasks related to the design, implementation, and evaluation of clinical research trials. While the literature explores CRC competencies, job satisfaction, and retention, little attention has been given to the role of the PI working with Human Resources (HR) in the CRC hiring and onboarding processes. We investigated the priorities, decision-making processes, and satisfaction levels of principal investigators (PIs) and hiring managers in CRC hiring.

An online survey consisting of open-ended and fixed-choice questions to gather information on desired CRC qualifications and competencies, factors influencing hiring decisions, and overall satisfaction with selected candidates was administered. The survey utilized a Task/Competency Checklist developed from job descriptions and the literature. Respondents were asked to rank the importance of factors such as CRC skill set, years of experience, educational background, and budget constraints.

Results indicated that the skill set of the applicant was the most frequently cited factor influencing the hiring decision, followed by years of experience. Education and budget constraints were of lesser importance. Most respondents reported a satisfaction rating of 50% or greater with their new hires, although some participants expressed challenges related to institutional training requirements, the performance of entry-level CRCs, and the qualifications of experienced candidates.

The hiring cycle involves HR-PI collaboration for a clear job description, effective onboarding processes, and accessible professional development opportunities to enhance PI and employee satisfaction and CRC retention.

This study examined the perceived competence of Clinical Research Coordinators (CRCs) using several conceptual frameworks. Accurate self-assessment of one’s professional competence is a critical component in the career navigation process and contributes to (a) identifying and securing professional development (training), (b) leveraging professional strengths, and (c) integrating self-knowledge into a comprehensive career plan.

A survey design gathered responses from a sample of 119 CRCs in a southeastern region of the USA Two conceptual frameworks were used to represent aspects of CRC professional competence: the eight Joint Task Force (JTF) competence domains, and perceptions of strengths and training needs from a list of 12 task categories.

The JTF domain with the lowest competence level was Development and Regulations, while the highest was Communication. Perceived competence increased incrementally with years of experience. Top strengths involved direct patient interaction and data management. Tasks in need of training included project management and reporting issues. Variations in responses were based on years of experience as a CRC.

Our results demonstrate an association between the self-reported strengths and training needs of CRCs and experience. This information can contribute to the self-directed career navigation of CRCs.