CCDM Exam Dumps - Certified Clinical Data Manager

Astandardized data collection elementhas well-defined metadata, consistent naming conventions, and controlled terminology to ensure uniform data collection and interoperability across studies.

Key attributes, as perGCDMPandCDISC standards, include:

Aclear definitionof meaning (A)

Acontrolled set of response values(C)

Metadata specificationslike variable names, formats, and data types (D)

However, thephysical positioningof a data element on a case report form (B) is a matter ofform layout design, not a characteristic of data standardization. While consistent form structure aids usability, it is not part of data standardization or metadata management principles.

Hence,option Bis correct —form positioning is not a standardized data element attribute.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: Standards and Data Integration, Section 4.1 – Data Element Standardization

CDISC CDASH Implementation Guide, Section 3.2 – Standardized Data Collection Elements and Metadata

ICH E6(R2) GCP, Section 5.5.3 – Data Handling and Standardization

In anElectronic Data Capture (EDC)system, even after a data manager completes all manual queries and marks data as "clean," the data may later appearuncleanifthe site (study coordinator)makes subsequent updates in the system after re-reviewing thesource documents.

According to theGood Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP, Chapter: Electronic Data Capture Systems), site users maintain the authority to modify data entries as long as the system remains open for data entry. TheEDC system audit trailcaptures such changes, which can automatically invalidate prior data reviews, triggering new discrepancies or changing system edit-check statuses.

This situation commonly occurs when the site identifies corrections in the source (e.g., wrong date or lab result) and updates the EDC form accordingly. These post-cleaning changes require additional review cycles to ensure the database reflects accurate and verified information before final lock.

Options B, C, and D are incorrect — CRAs and medical monitors cannot directly change EDC data; they can only raise queries or request updates.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Electronic Data Capture Systems, Section 6.3 – Post-Cleaning Data Changes and Audit Trails

ICH E6 (R2) GCP, Section 5.5.3 – Data Integrity and Change Control

FDA 21 CFR Part 11 – Electronic Records: Change Documentation Requirements

When aCRF modificationleads to a sudden increase inEDC queries, the most likely cause is an error or misconfiguration in theedit checksintroduced during or after the change. Therefore, the first step should be toreview the edit checks for correctness.

TheGCDMP (Chapter: Database Design and Validation)emphasizes that any database or CRF modification should triggerretesting of affected validation rules. Incorrect logic, thresholds, or missing conditional statements in automated edit checks can cause false or redundant queries, leading to unnecessary data management burden and site frustration.

Manually handling edit checks (option A) or adding SDV (option B) does not address the root cause. Having monitors close queries (option D) would mask the problem rather than resolve it.

Thus, the correct corrective measure isOption C — review and validate the edit checksto ensure proper functionality.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Database Design and Validation, Section 5.5 – Edit Check Testing and Review

ICH E6 (R2) GCP, Section 5.5.3 – Validation and Change Control for Electronic Systems

FDA 21 CFR Part 11 – System Validation and Change Documentation

To monitorsite variability in eligibility screening, you must analyzethe number of subjects screenedversusthe number of subjects enrolledat each site. This allows identification of sites that are over- or under-screening relative to their enrollment yield.

TheGCDMP (Chapter: Data Quality Assurance and Metrics)emphasizes thatscreening-to-enrollment ratiosare critical indicators of protocol compliance and data quality. Sites with unusually low conversion rates may have unclear understanding of inclusion/exclusion criteria, requiring targeted training or monitoring.

Other options (A, C, D) provide enrollment metrics but do not revealscreening efficiency or variability, which depend on bothscreening and enrollment data.

Thus,option Bcorrectly identifies the data necessary for monitoring eligibility screening performance across sites.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: Data Quality Assurance and Metrics, Section 5.4 – Site Performance Metrics

ICH E6(R2) GCP, Section 5.18 – Monitoring and Site Oversight Requirements

In managingsite data timeliness, the most actionable and effective tool is areport listing all outstanding (missing or incomplete) CRFs.

According toGCDMP (Chapter: Communication and Study Reporting), Data Managers must providesite-level performance reportshighlighting:

Outstanding CRFs not yet entered,

Unresolved queries, and

Pending data corrections.

Such reports help sites prioritize and address data gaps efficiently.

Option AandDare historical metrics without actionable context.

Option Bgives a general overview but lacks specific site-level actionability.

Hence,option C (List of outstanding forms)provides the clearest and most motivating feedback to sites for timely data entry and query resolution.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: Communication and Study Reporting, Section 5.3 – Data Timeliness and Reporting Metrics

ICH E6(R2) GCP, Section 5.1.1 – Sponsor Oversight and Data Communication Requirements

FDA Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations, Section 6.5 – Site-Level Data Timeliness Reporting

Thebest practicewhen implementing aprotocol amendmentthat affects CRF content or data collection timing is toupdate the eCRF completion guidelines and notify sites before implementing the change.

According to theGCDMP (Chapter: CRF Design and Data Collection), theeCRF Completion Guidelines (eCRF CG)are an essential study tool that instructs site personnel on accurate and consistent data entry. When new data elements or collection time points are added, the guidelines must berevised, version-controlled, and communicatedto all users prior to implementation to ensure sites collect and enter data correctly.

Simply relying on the revised CRF (option C) or updating the document without notification (option B) violates communication and training standards. Likewise, notifying sites without updating the documentation (option D) leaves insufficient reference material for data entry compliance.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: CRF Design and Data Collection, Section 5.5 – Managing CRF Revisions and Site Communication

ICH E6 (R2) GCP, Section 5.18.4 – Communication of Protocol Amendments and Documentation Updates

FDA Guidance for Industry: Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations, Section 4.3 – Site Communication and Documentation Management

Prior to an audit, theauditeeshould expect to receive anaudit plan or agenda, which outlines thescope, objectives, schedule, and logisticsof the audit.

According to theGCDMP (Chapter: Quality Assurance and Audits), anaudit planensures transparency, preparation, and efficient execution. It typically includes details such as:

The audit scope and objectives,

The audit team members,

Documents or processes to be reviewed, and

The audit schedule and timeframe.

This allows the auditee to prepare the necessary records, staff, and facilities. While the auditor’s credentials (option A) may be shared informally, they are not a regulatory requirement.Corrective actions (option B)are outcomes of the audit, not pre-audit materials.Standard Operating Procedures (option C)may be requested during the audit but are not provided in advance.

Thus,Option D – Audit Plan or Agenda– is the correct and compliant answer.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Quality Assurance and Audits, Section 6.1 – Pre-Audit Planning and Communication

ICH E6 (R2) Good Clinical Practice, Section 5.19.3 – Audit Procedures and Responsibilities

FDA Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations – Section 8.1 – Audit Preparation and Planning

In studies where themedical record serves as the source document, theElectronic Data Capture (EDC)system users (typically study coordinators or site personnel) must have appropriatetraining on how to access and log into the medical record system. This competency ensures that data abstracted from the electronic medical record (EMR) are complete, accurate, and verifiable in compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) andGood Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP).

According to theGCDMP (Chapter: EDC Systems and Data Capture)andICH E6(R2), all personnel involved in data entry and verification must be trained in both the EDC and the primary source systems (e.g., EMR). This ensures that the integrity of data flow—from source to EDC—is maintained, and that personnel understand system access controls, audit trails, and proper documentation of source verification.

Whileresolving discrepant data (C)andscreening subjects (A)are part of study operations, thecompetency directly related to EDC system use in EMR-based studiesis the ability to properly log into and navigate the medical records system to extract source data.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: Electronic Data Capture (EDC), Section 5.1 – Source Data and System Access Requirements

ICH E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice, Section 4.9 – Source Documents and Data Handling

FDA Guidance: Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations, Section 3 – Investigator Responsibilities