Skip to content

Therapeutic Expertise

Depth where it counts, breadth where it helps.

We do not claim every indication. Our network is built around patient populations we can genuinely reach and protocols our investigators have run before — with wound care as the area we know best and invest in hardest.

Discuss an indicationRemote monitoring

Primary focus

Wound Care

Chronic non-healing wounds, where slow enrollment and long assessment schedules make site infrastructure and remote follow-up decisive.

Wound care trials are structurally difficult. Inclusion criteria are narrow, participants carry heavy comorbidity burdens, and the urgency of care frequently means a patient needs treatment before they can be screened. Add a twelve-week closure endpoint that depends on assessments happening exactly on schedule and the result is a well-documented enrollment problem: US diabetic foot ulcer trials average 1.51 patients per site per month, with a median of 0.58.

The published determinants of faster enrollment in this space are unambiguous — more sites, and less travel burden on participants. That is the entire thesis of a multi-site SMO with a remote nursing team, which is why wound care is where we concentrate.

Between-visit assessment is also a solved problem now. AI-assisted smartphone wound imaging, captured by the participant or a visiting nurse and reviewed remotely, means deterioration or stagnation triggers intervention within days. Home care is the fastest-growing segment of chronic wound management for exactly this reason, and sponsor protocols are following.

Indications & study types

  • Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU)
  • Venous leg ulcers (VLU)
  • Pressure injuries
  • Chronic non-healing and hard-to-heal wounds
  • Surgical and dehisced wounds
  • Cellular, acellular, and matrix-like products (CAMPs)
  • Advanced dressings and topical therapies
  • Negative pressure and device-based wound therapy

Therapeutic area

Endocrinology & Metabolic

Diabetes and metabolic disease, with substantial overlap into the wound care population we already follow.

The endocrine and wound care populations overlap heavily, and that overlap is an operational advantage. Sites already following diabetic patients for foot ulcer protocols hold pre-identified, well-characterized cohorts for metabolic studies, and vice versa.

These indications also suit decentralized elements particularly well. Glucose data, weight, adherence, and patient-reported outcomes are all capturable remotely, which reduces visit frequency without weakening the dataset.

Indications & study types

  • Type 2 diabetes mellitus
  • Type 1 diabetes mellitus
  • Obesity and weight management
  • Diabetic peripheral neuropathy
  • Metabolic syndrome and dyslipidemia
  • Thyroid disorders
  • Continuous glucose monitoring studies

Therapeutic area

Medical Devices

Device and combination-product studies, including the post-market clinical follow-up commitments that outlive the pivotal trial.

Device programs generate obligations that continue long after approval. Post-market clinical follow-up, surveillance studies, and performance registries all require scheduled participant contact across years, and they are routinely under-resourced because the pivotal trial team has moved on.

This is work our remote nursing model is built for. Long-horizon follow-up is a staffing and retention problem before it is a data problem, and a centralized nursing team is a far more reliable way to solve it than asking sites to maintain contact indefinitely.

Indications & study types

  • Wound care devices and advanced therapy systems
  • Diagnostic and imaging devices
  • Digital health technologies and connected devices
  • Combination products
  • Post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF)
  • Post-market surveillance studies
  • Real-world performance and outcomes registries

Therapeutic area

Primary Care & Internal Medicine

Community practice research, where broad patient panels and established physician relationships drive recruitment.

Primary care is where most patients actually receive care, and community practices consistently out-recruit large urban academic centres — particularly in suburban and rural populations that sponsors struggle to reach. Roughly 80% of trials fail to meet enrollment timelines, and urban-centric site selection is a meaningful part of why.

The barrier has never been patient willingness. It is that a busy practice cannot absorb the administrative weight of a protocol. Removing that weight is the core of what we do for provider sites, and it is what turns a community practice into a productive research location.

Indications & study types

  • Cardiometabolic risk management
  • Hypertension
  • Vaccines and preventive care
  • Respiratory and seasonal illness
  • Chronic disease management
  • Pragmatic and observational study designs
  • Health outcomes and quality-of-life research

Across every indication

The operating capabilities that travel with us.

Therapeutic area determines the patients. These determine whether the study runs well.

  • Centralized feasibility and honest enrollment projection
  • Single master agreement and protocol-accurate budgeting
  • IRB strategy, regulatory submission, and essential document control
  • Standardized site training and documented delegation
  • eSource data capture at the point of care
  • Remote clinical nurse follow-up across the full follow-up window
  • Risk-based centralized monitoring with quality tolerance limits
  • Portfolio-level enrollment and performance reporting

Discuss an indication

Working in an area we have not listed? Ask anyway.

Our network grows with the studies we take on. If the patient population is reachable and the protocol is executable, we will tell you plainly whether we can deliver it.

Request a feasibility reviewCall (601) 454-4479