This business is not BBB accredited.
Jean Brown ResearchAdditional Locations
Phone: (801) 261-2000 Fax: (801) 261-4539 1045 E 3900 S Ste 100, Salt Lake City, UT 84124 View Additional Email Addresses
BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
This business is not BBB accredited.
Reason for Rating
BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.
Factors that affect the rating for Jean Brown Research include:
- Length of time business has been operating
- Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
- Response to 1 complaint(s) filed against business
- Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business
Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details
|Complaint Type||Total Closed Complaints|
|Problems with Product/Service||1|
|Total Closed Complaints||1|
Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews
|Customer Experience||Total Customer Reviews|
|Total Customer Reviews||0|
Type of Entity
Business ManagementMs. Mary Mower, VP/CFO Mrs. Jean Brown, President/CEO
Medical Testing Companies Pharmaceutical Products - Research Laboratories - Research & Development
Alternate Business NamesJean Brown Associates, Inc.
Products & Services
This company offers clinical pharmaceutical research.
What is a BBB Business Review?
About BBB Business Review Content & Services:
The additional content & services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release.
Not all enhanced content & services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.
Types of Complaints Handled by BBB
- Advertising or Sales
- Billing or Collection
- Problems with Products or Services
- Guarantee or Warranty
BBB Complaint Process
What is BBB Advertising Review?
What government actions does BBB report on?
BBB Reporting Policy
As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.
Additional Email Addresses
- - Communication/Mass Email
Complaint Trends - Last 3 Years
Customer Review Trends
BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview
BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.
|Customer Review Experience||Value|
|Positive Review||5 points per review|
|Neutral Review||3 points per review|
|Negative Review||1 point per review|
BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
BBB Letter Grade Scale
Star Rating scale
BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.
Problems with Product/Service
Read Complaint Details
Complaint: From the beginning this entire study has been From the beginning this entire study has been a joke. The physicians assistant is not trained in reading ECG/EKG and told me I'd had a heart attack. I have never had a heart attack and when looking at my study it's factual that is not true. My T & U wave were both fine. Each appointment I get a reminder email stating how long each appointment. I have ever had an appointment under a hour and a half, no matter what it's for. These reminders say 5 minutes or 40 minutes. I have had to come to an addition appointment due to the misreading on my EKG. Today no one knew what labs they needed, they tossed urine from patients they needed and had to be redone. The phlebotomist poked me 6 times before getting my blood. The young girl who was in there was sassy and unnecessary. I did not appreciate her rudeness. In each room due to the gap in the ceilings dividing each room there was no privacy. HIPPA was very much so compromised. I will continue the study but I would like to report how unprofessional the team at Jean Brown is. I worry they are even documenting accurately for the study. Later during my stay for my study I was in a room smaller than a jail cell, no tv, no sink/bathroom, no outside light. I was unable to shower the entire time. The staff was very inconsistent. I could never get an answer that was the same, I was told inaccurate information and changed every minute. I asked questions and the staff did not like that. The staff there is either not medically trained or are R.N's who don't use any skills. They plug in a vitals machine, Velcro a BP cuff on and press a button. They ask me on a scale from 1-10. A monkey could do this. I will never return to this facility nor recommend it. a joke. The physicians assistant is not trained in reading ECG/EKG and told me I'd had a heart attack. I have never had a heart attack and when looking at my study it's factual that is not true. My T & U wave were both fine. Each appointment I get a reminder email stating how long each appointment. I have ever had an appointment under a hour and a half, no matter what it's for. These reminders say 5 minutes or 40 minutes. I have had to come to an addition appointment due to the misreading on my EKG. Today no one knew what labs they needed, they tossed urine from patients they needed and had to be redone. The phlebotomist poked me 6 times before getting my blood. The young girl who was in there was sassy and unnecessary. I did not appreciate her rudeness. In each room due to the gap in the ceilings dividing each room there was no privacy. HIPPA was very much so compromised. I will continue the study but I would like to report how unprofessional the team at Jean Brown is. I worry they are even documenting accurately for the study. Later during my stay for my study I was in a room smaller than a jail cell, no tv, no sink/bathroom, no outside light. I was unable to shower the entire time. The staff was very inconsistent. I could never get an answer that was the same, I was told inaccurate information and changed every minute. I asked questions and the staff did not like that. I also signed a contract for compensation. $25 for completing the screening visit. $25 for completing the 2nd visit (the exercise session). $100 for time and travel on day 1. Receive up to $200 for inpatient days, day 2, day 3 and day 4. $50 for time and travel for day 5. I competed the screening visit, the exercise visit and 3 days inpatient before I was asked to leave for asking questions about the study protocol and time frame in being discharge. I was willing to stay and complete the study. Jean Brown Research wanted to do my final EKG and lab work from Day 5 visit and not have me actually there or pay me for it. When I said this was unethical that is when they told me I had to leave and they refused to finish the study. Carol, the facility manager told me it was no big deal... this was just a pilot study. I am sure that the research company would not appreciate this kind of attitude. They pay thousands of dollars to get their product tested and for them to not even take it seriously and want to lie to get inaccurate information is WRONG. Jean Brown is not refusing to pay me my study money in wholeness. I signed a contract and completed my duty. I will never return to this facility nor recommend it.
Desired Settlement: I would like my full payment of $800 I would like the research company- LEAD Chemical Co, Ltd to know how Jean Brown Research is handling their accounts I would like Jean Brown Research written up for fraudulent information.
To Whom It May Concern:
Jean Brown Research has been in business since 1986. We have been conducting clinical trials for almost 30 years. I can assure you of our utmost professionalism and expertise. Our staff is highly trained in Good Clinical Practices, HIPPA, and FDA Regulations, as well as medically trained professionals.
In defense of our excellent Physician’s Assistant she is highly competent and trained in reading ECGs as well as ACLS. She was at the top of her class in the Physician’s Assistant program. The discrepancy comes with the fact that ******* ***** has multiple metal piercings in the chest/breast region that interfered with the ECG readings. In clinical trials SAFETY is our utmost concern and we will not enroll a subject IF we cannot assure their health is assessed and deemed safe to proceed. At that point ******* was considered a screen failure until we could get approval from our Medical Director as well as the Pharmaceutical/Sponsor’s Medical Director.
Also of note, ******* complained about the screening visit while she was here blatantly calling people incompetent. While having a physical exam with our physician and Study Coordinator (SC) ******* mentioned to him that we have a PA that doesn’t know how to read an ECG and that she was concerned if we know what we were doing. Our physician assured her that we do know what we are doing and continued with the exam. She had a bad attitude from the beginning of the study. I am not sure why she still desired participation if she felt we didn’t know what we were doing.
Once the approval was given the study coordinator contacted ******* to let her know she was able to participate if she desired. She was compensated for the screen failure visit in the amount of $25 as stated in the informed consent. She continued to want to participate and the exercise appointment was made which also included a required blood draw at that time.
At her exercise visit she stated she was in a hurry to get to work. The study SC confirmed that the visit would take about 2-3 hours, and ******* said she got a message that it would only be 1-1 ½ hours. SC told her that she was confirming 2-3 hours and asked if she would like to come back at another time. She continued to proceed but was not happy. (When we first start a study we anticipate the amount of time it will take to complete all required assessments. When a subject is late to an appointment or there are unexpected circumstances then study visits go longer. In this case it was at the beginning of the study and the anticipated timing was not completely established so we offered her the chance to come back.)
As to the complaint about the phlebotomist, ******* began to insist that the phlebotomist draw from her non-dominate arm, however, when the phlebotomist explained that she would like to try her dominate arm first because if we draw from the non-dominate arm we will have to wait for the blood to clot to exercise her arm. ******* said she didn’t want to wait any longer because she had to get to work. The phlebotomist proceeded to try to draw blood two times, and when she couldn’t obtain blood, we called for our pediatric phlebotomist to draw. We told ******* in order to proceed with the visit we needed to be able to draw blood and that we were willing to try the other side but she insisted she didn’t want to wait for that clot. The pediatric phlebotomist made an unsuccessful attempt on the dominate hand and then attempted to draw on the dominate arm and was able to obtain blood. While sitting in the chair she was offered some water and the patient stated (snippy) “Why would I need that? I already had plenty of water today”. “She also said she expected us to know what we are doing”. SC reminded the patient this is completely voluntarily study and if she feels she doesn’t want to participate at any time to let us know. She said she was fine with continuing so we proceeded on.
As to the HIPPA complaint, a stand-alone research facility is not considered a covered entity of HIPPA. Although we absolutely function under the regulation, we do everything to protect personal health information as well as the subject’s identity. She was screened in a room with 4 walls and a closed door with a 2 foot opening at the ceiling 9 ft. up. Conversations were not discussed loudly.
In regards to the room she was staying in there is a methodology that is required when conducting clinical trials. You cannot have a bathroom in order to prevent subjects from hiding study medications, and urine output needs to be assessed accurately in a very controlled way to capture all data. This study did not require these study precautions, but that is how we are set up. No TV is allowed so that we can conduct our assessments without distractions to prevent any placebo effects or lack of attention from the subject on this matter. A room that is without any warm, fuzzy persuasive appearance is also to prevent any placebo effects. This is not a hospital environment. These are healthy volunteers. She was told to bring her lap top and any work or other things that she could do while staying.
The reason for the shower was explained to the subjects that this study will not allow a shower due to the topical medication. If washed off it will skew the data. There are various protocol requirements that are completed for the viability of the study.
As stated in her complaint, Jean Brown is not refusing to pay her for her completed visits. She called our Project Manager (PM) several times while on the study and asked about leaving the study early instead of the required time. The PM spoke to her and explained the compensation as well as the right to leave at any time. She also explained that the Informed Consent Form (ICF) she signed explained the study procedures and visits very clearly. She told the PM that she had thrown her copy away. The PM also mentioned several times that the study is voluntary and she could withdraw consent at any time. She kept saying how the data is probably messed up anyway and the sponsor won't even get good results. That's when the PM explained that this is a pilot study and results have been as expected and that we're capturing the data we need.
As for our request to terminate her from the study a day early was due to her loud negative conversations and non-compliance as a participant. She was upsetting all the other study participants. Her conversations included statements that included: “JBR and all staff are also incompetent and stupid.” “She is very lucky to work with competent people that aren't stupid, that other participants are probably stay-at-home mothers, or people who don't work that need the money, but she makes $100K a year and doesn’t need it.” The SC called the Medical Monitor and it was decided to have her escorted out.
She was compensated for all study assessments that she completed. She was also compensated the full amount of $200 for Day 3 even though she did not stay overnight. The ICF states you MAY receive up to $200 for Inpatient days, day 2, day 3, and day 4, (if completed). She did not stay or complete any assessment for Day 4 and will not complete the F/U visit due to being early discharged because of her attitude and behavior.
She called again about her compensation and she was told that she would be compensated $550.00 for her study participation. $25.00 for Screening visit 1, $25 for the exercise session visit 2, $100 for Day 1 (Friday), $200 for Day 2 (Saturday), and $200 for Day 3 (Sunday, which was not actually completed in full).
*She also received $25 for being a screen fail at first due to her ECG reading. So, in total, her card was loaded for $575.00
A business can give you their history but that does not always mean that they are legitimate company who is honest and follows legal obligations. I was willing to stay for the entire study and was told that they did not care it was a pilot study. I did not get compensated for the entire visit and was given one reason or another why I couldn't be. I know research facilities pay thousands of dollars for their product to be tested and for competence. Jean Brown was far from competent or honest with their duties.