Risk-Based Quality: Why Not Every Part of a Study Should Feel Hard
- maryrburrell
- 2 days ago
- 2 min read
This is the second post in our series explaining the new global guidelines (ICH E6(R3)) through real patient experience, not complicated policy terms.
Clinical trials can feel overwhelming.
So many visits.
So many rules.
So much paperwork.
That’s where a newer idea comes in called Risk-Based Quality.
Here’s what it really means: Not every part of a study carries the same level of risk. Some things matter a lot for patient safety and trust. Other things matter… less.
Risk-based quality means research teams are now explicitly encouraged to:
🔎 Focus attention on what truly affects patient safety.
🔎 Stop treating every small task like it’s life-or-death.
🔎 Reduce unnecessary burden on patients by eliminating "extra" requirements that don't add value to the science.
When "Everything" is Critical, the Patient Pays the Price. In theory, this is a good thing. But when everything is treated as "critical," patients feel it.
They feel it when appointments pile up, when paperwork feels endless, and when they feel exhausted but afraid to speak up.

Risk-based thinking asks research teams to pause and say:
"What really matters here?"
"What could actually cause harm?"
"What is just habit or tradition?"
The Gap Between "Paper" and "Life" When this is done well, visits feel more purposeful and patients don’t feel punished for being human.
But what feels "low risk" on paper—like a quick blood draw—can still feel heavy in real life when you factor in:
❤️🩹 A long drive.
❤️🩹 A missed workday.
❤️🩹 Brain fog or pain.
❤️🩹 Caregiver coordination.
That’s why the patient voice matters here too. At HeartBridge Collective (HBC), we help patients understand what research is asking of them—and help researchers understand what those requests actually feel like day-to-day.
Patients aren’t asking for studies with no rules. They’re asking for studies that respect their limits. That’s what real quality looks like.
❤️🩹 HeartBridge Collective ~Bridging the gap between clinical research and the patient experience.



Comments