Mohamad-Ali Salloum is a Pharmacist and science writer. He loves simplifying science to the general public and healthcare students through words and illustrations. When he's not working, you can usually find him in the gym, reading a book, or learning a new skill.
Stop Blaming People, Start Fixing Systems: Human Error vs. System Error in Clinical Research
Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD • February 13, 2026
Share
Stop Blaming “Human Error”: How ICH GCP E6(R3) Reframes Quality in Clinical Trials. Clinical trials still see the same recurring deviations—late SAE reporting, missed visit windows, outdated ICF versions, missing data. And too often, the explanation offered is simply “human error.” But the newly finalized ICH GCP E6(R3) makes it clear: lasting quality comes from system design , not blame. E6(R3) modernizes GCP with flexible, risk‑based, technology‑enabled expectations and explicitly strengthens Quality by Design (QbD), proportionality, and management of critical‑to‑quality factors.
If “human error” keeps recurring, the real cause isn’t the person—it’s the system they’re working in.
The Two Lenses: Person vs. System
The Person Approach: Retrain and Move On
This outdated model treats deviations as individual lapses—forgetfulness, miscalculations, oversight. The typical response is retraining or reminders. The outcome? The error returns because nothing structural changed.
The System Approach: Design for Reliability
E6(R3) reinforces that quality must be designed into trials from the start, not inspected in afterward. The system approach emphasizes usability of workflows, automation and digital tools, clarity of roles, proportional controls, critical‑to‑quality focus, and better data governance. That aligns with modern patient‑safety science and high‑reliability industries.
Reason’s Swiss Cheese Model still applies: every layer—protocol, SOPs, training, systems—has holes. Incidents occur when holes align. Strengthen each layer and misalign the holes.
🧠
Mindset shift:
Don’t ask “Who slipped?”—ask “What made the slip likely across people and time?”
✅
Goal:
Fewer repeat deviations through better system design, not more training memos.
What ICH GCP E6(R3) Expects
- Quality by Design (QbD): Identify critical‑to‑quality (CTQ) factors and build controls where they matter most.
- Proportionality and Fitness‑for‑Purpose: Right‑size controls; not all data must be error‑free if reliability is preserved.
- Modern Data Governance: Robust oversight of computerized systems, audit trails, eConsent, and remote processes—media‑neutral by design.
- Strengthened Sponsor Responsibilities: Demonstrate process‑level oversight and rationale for decisions across the trial lifecycle—not just at closeout.
- Support for Innovative Designs: Decentralized, digital, and pragmatic trials are enabled when risks are proactively managed.
Tip: Document why your controls are sufficient for each CTQ—this is often what inspectors want to see.
Plain‑English Definitions
Human Error: A slip or mistake by a person. Often a symptom , not the root cause.
System Error: A condition in the environment, process, tools, or workload that increases error probability across people and time.
Fixing the system reduces repeat deviations dramatically.
A CRA’s Four‑Question Decision Aid
- Task design: Is the task dependent on memory or manual calculation? → System.
- Environment/workload: Were interruptions, stress, or understaffing involved? → System.
- Information/interface: Are SOPs clear and tools user‑friendly? If not → System.
- Controls: Are there alerts, double‑checks, dashboards, or QTLs? If missing → System.
Even if a person contributed, E6(R3) expects you to assess and strengthen system barriers.
Field Scenarios: How E6(R3) Should Change Your Response
1) Late SAE Reporting
Old explanation: Coordinator forgot to report.
E6(R3) approach:
- Process Daily AE review checklists and backup coverage.
- Tools EMR keyword alerts and a centralized SAE tracker with due‑date warnings.
- Oversight Weekly PI/CRA timeliness review with QbD‑aligned CTQs and QTLs.
Result: A workflow that makes timely reporting the default.
2) Out‑of‑Window Visits
Old explanation: “Staff miscalculated.”
E6(R3) approach: Validated visit‑window calculator, automatic calendar reminders, double‑checks during scheduling, and capacity planning to reduce overload—Quality by Design in action.
3) Wrong ICF Version Used
Old explanation: “Nurse grabbed the wrong form.”
E6(R3) approach: Single digital source of truth for ICFs; watermarked versions; removal of obsolete copies; eConsent with automated version control; and a CRA‑review queue for new versions.
This enhances compliance and inspection readiness.
What Inspectors Commonly Cite Under E6(R3)
- Repeated deviations “fixed” only with retraining
- “Human error” listed repeatedly as the root cause
- Weak justification for controls or missing decision rationale
- CAPAs missing effectiveness verification or closed late
Actions You Can Take This Month
- Map a high‑risk process (e.g., SAE → reporting) and identify memory‑based steps; add automation or checklists.
- Define critical‑to‑quality (CTQ) factors and proportional controls aligned with E6(R3).
- Document decision‑making—not just outcomes—consistent with R3 expectations for process rationales.
- Strengthen eTMF/CTMS oversight to ensure end‑to‑end visibility of essential records.
- Prepare for inspections by demonstrating real‑time oversight, rationale, data governance, and continuous risk management.
🔎
The Takeaway:
“Human error” is never the end of the investigation—it’s the starting point. E6(R3) emphasizes Quality by Design, proportionality, critical‑to‑quality thinking, and robust data governance. CRAs can shift monitoring from surface‑level checks to true Quality‑by‑Design oversight, preventing repeat deviations and strengthening inspection readiness.
Quick Knowledge Check
~3 minutes1) Under E6(R3), which approach best prevents repeat deviations?
2) Which of the following is a system fix for late SAE reporting?
3) E6(R3) expects sponsors to document…
4) Which change reduces out‑of‑window visits?
5) Using the wrong ICF version is best prevented by…
Score: — / 5
Like this article?
List of Services
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD
Share
Recent articles:
References: Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol . 2012;63:1–29. Chai WJ, Abd Hamid AI, Malin Abdullah J. Working memory from the psychological and neurosciences perspectives: a review. Front Psychol . 2018;9:401. Rogers RD, Monsell S. Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen . 1995;124(2):207–231. Rubinstein JS, Meyer DE, Evans JE. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform . 2001;27(4):763–797. Garner KG, Dux PE. Knowledge generalization and the costs of multitasking. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2023;24:98–112. Zhou X, Lei X. Wandering minds with wandering brain networks. Neurosci Bull . 2018;34(6):1017–1028. Sorella S, Crescentini C, Matiz A, et al. Resting‑state default mode network variability predicts spontaneous mind‑wandering. Front Hum Neurosci . 2025;19:1515902. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci . 1988;12(2):257–285.
Why do we procrastinate even when tasks matter most? Discover the emotional roots of procrastination and how to stop
Confidence and self-esteem are often confused but are psychologically distinct. Learn how they differ, how each develops, and why understanding both matters for real growth.
Confidence isn’t about eliminating fear—it’s about acting despite it. Discover how courage, discomfort, and psychological growth build real confidence over time.
References: McMurray JJV, Packer M, Desai AS, et al. Angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med . 2014;371(11):993–1004. Barter PJ, Caulfield M, Eriksson M, et al. Effects of torcetrapib in patients at high risk for coronary events. N Engl J Med . 2007;357:2109–2122. Kastelein JJP, Akdim F, Stroes ESG, et al. Simvastatin with or without ezetimibe in familial hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med . 2008;358:1431–1443. Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med . 2008;358:2545–2559. Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. N Engl J Med . 1991;324:781–788. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al. Effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular and renal outcomes. N Engl J Med . 2020;383:1413–1424. Ioannidis JPA. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being misled? BMJ . 2013;346:f314.
References: Wager TD, Atlas LY. The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2015;16(7):403‑18. Frisaldi E, Shaibani A, Benedetti F, Pagnini F. Placebo and nocebo effects associated with pharmacological interventions: an umbrella review. BMJ Open . 2023;13:e077243. Colloca L, Finniss D. Nocebo effects, patient‑clinician communication, and therapeutic outcomes. JAMA . 2012;307(6):567‑8. Howard JP, Wood FA, Finegold JA, et al. Side effect patterns in a blinded, randomized trial of statin, placebo, and no treatment. N Engl J Med . 2021;385(23):2180‑9. Penson PE, Mancini GBJ, Toth PP, et al. Introducing the “drucebo” effect in statin therapy. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle . 2018;9(6):1023‑33. Barnes K, Faasse K, Geers AL, et al. Can positive framing reduce nocebo side effects? Front Pharmacol . 2019;10:167. Caliskan EB, Bingel U, Kunkel A. Translating knowledge on placebo and nocebo effects into clinical practice. Pain Rep . 2024;9(2):e1142. von Wernsdorff M, Loef M, Tuschen‑Caffier B, Schmidt S. Effects of open‑label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Sci Rep . 2021;11:3855.
References: Zaniletti I, Larson DR, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ, Maradit Kremers H. How to distinguish correlation from causation in orthopaedic research. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(4):634–637. Rush J, Ajami M, Look KA, Margolis A. Statistics review part 10: causality and confounding. J Pharm Soc Wis. 2014;17(1):45–52. Koopmans E, Schiller C. Understanding causation in healthcare: an introduction to critical realism. Qual Health Res. 2022;32(8–9):1207–1214. Kahlert J, Gribsholt SB, Gammelager H, Dekkers OM, Luta G. Control of confounding in the analysis phase – an overview for clinicians. Clin Epidemiol. 2017;9:195–204. Shi AX, Zivich PN, Chu H. A comprehensive review and tutorial on confounding adjustment methods for estimating treatment effects using observational data. Appl Sci (Basel). 2024;14(9):3662. Gao Y, Xiang L, Yi H, Song J, Sun D, Xu B, et al. Confounder adjustment in observational studies investigating multiple risk factors: a methodological study. BMC Med. 2025;23:132. Ho FK, Brown J, Galwey NW. Regression adjustment for causal inference. BMJ Med. 2025;4:e000816. Correia LCL, Mascarenhas RF, Menezes FSC, Oliveira Junior JS, Vaccarino V, Ross JS, et al. Confounder selection in observational studies in high‑impact medical and epidemiological journals. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(7):e2524176.
Explore the difference between Sensitivity and Specificity
References: Zaniletti I, Larson DR, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ, Maradit Kremers H. How to Distinguish Correlation from Causation in Orthopaedic Research. J Arthroplasty. 2022;38(4):634‑637. [pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] Association of Health Care Journalists. Correlation vs. Causation. [healthjournalism.org] Rush J, Ajami M, Look K, Margolis A. Statistics Review Part 10: Causality and Confounding. J Pharm Soc Wis. [jpswi.org] Biostat Prime. Correlation vs Causation: Meaning, Differences & Examples. [biostatprime.com] Koopmans E, Schiller C. Understanding Causation in Healthcare: An Introduction to Critical Realism. Qual Health Res. 2022;32(8–9):1207–1214. [pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
References: Very Big Brain. Somatic Memories: How Physical Sensations Trigger Past Memories and Emotions . 2023 Nov 26. [verybigbrain.com] Misattribution of arousal. Wikipedia . 2026. [en.wikipedia.org] Zimbardo P. The Misattribution of Arousal Study (Dutton & Aron) . 2026. [zimbardo.com] Higgins L. Why You Feel Anxious After Drinking Coffee . TIME. 2025 Nov 11. [time.com] Double KS. Metacognitive ability is associated with reduced emotion suppression . Scientific Reports. 2026 Jan 28. [nature.com] Merkebu J et al. What is metacognitive reflection? Front Educ. 2023 Apr 5. [researchgate.net] Meyers S et al. Cognitive Reappraisal is More Effective for Regulating Emotions than Moods . Affective Science. 2025 Jun 6. [link.springer.com]