Ariel Ducey

Identifying optimal postmarket surveillance strategies for medical and surgical devices: implications for policy, practice and research

Background Non-drug technologies offer many benefits, but have been associated with adverse events, prompting calls for improved postmarket surveillance. There is little empirical research to guide the development of such a system. The purpose of this study was to identify optimal postmarket surveillance strategies for medical and surgical devices. Methods Qualitative methods were used for sampling, data collection and analysis. Stakeholders from Canada and the USA representing different roles and perspectives were first interviewed to identify examples and characteristics of different surveillance strategies. These stakeholders and others they recommended were then assembled at a 1-day nominal group meeting to discuss and prioritise the components of a postmarket device surveillance system, and research needed to achieve such a system. Results Consultations were held with 37 participants, and 47 participants attended the 1-day meeting. They recommended a multicomponent system including reporting by facilities, clinicians and patients, supported with some external surveillance for validation and real-time trials for high-risk devices. Many considerations were identified that constitute desirable characteristics of, and means by which to implement such a system. An overarching network was envisioned to broker linkages, establish a shared minimum dataset, and support communication and decision making. Numerous research questions were identified, which could be pursued in tandem with phased implementation of the system. Discussion These findings provide unique guidance for establishing a device safety network that is based on existing initiatives, and could be expanded and evaluated in a prospective, phased fashion as it was developed.

Ethics, economics and the regulation and adoption of new medical devices: case studies in pelvic floor surgery

AbstractBackgroundConcern has been growing in the academic literature and popular media about the licensing, introduction and adoption of surgical devices before full effectiveness and safety evidence is available to inform clinical practice. Our research will seek empirical survey evidence about the roles, responsibilities, and information and policy needs of the key stakeholders in the introduction into clinical practice of new surgical devices for pelvic floor surgery, in terms of the underlying ethical principals involved in the economic decision-making process, using the example of pelvic floor procedures.Methods/DesignOur study involves three linked case studies using, as examples, selected pelvic floor surgery devices representing Health Canada device safety risk classes: low, medium and high risk. Data collection will focus on stakeholder roles and responsibilities, information and policy needs, and perceptions of those of other key stakeholders, in seeking and using evidence about new surgical devices when licensing and adopting them into practice. For each class of device, interviews will be used to seek the opinions of stakeholders. The following stakeholders and ethical and economic principles provide the theoretical framework for the study: Stakeholders - federal regulatory body, device manufacturers, clinicians, patients, health care institutions, provincial health departments, and professional societies. Clinical settings in two centres (in different provinces) will be included. Ethics - beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice. Economics - scarcity of resources, choices, opportunity costs.For each class of device, responses will be analysed to compare and contrast between stakeholders. Applied ethics and economic theory, analysis and critical interpretation will be used to further illuminate the case study material.DiscussionThe significance of our research in this new area of ethics will lie in providing recommendations for regulatory bodies, device manufacturers, clinicians, health care institutions, policy makers and professional societies, to ensure surgical patients receive sufficient information before providing consent for pelvic floor surgery. In addition, we shall provide a wealth of information for future study in other areas of surgery and clinical management, and provide suggestions for changes to health policy.

Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices

Background Postmarket surveillance of medical devices is reliant on physician reporting of adverse medical device events (AMDEs). Little is known about factors that influence whether and how physicians report AMDEs, an essential step in developing behaviour change interventions. This study explored factors that influence AMDE reporting. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with physicians who differed by specialties that implant cardiovascular and orthopaedic devices prone to AMDEs, geography and years in practice. Participants were asked if and how they reported AMDEs, and the influencing factors. Themes were identified inductively using constant comparative technique, and reviewed and discussed by the research team on four occasions. Results Twenty-two physicians of varying specialty, region, organisation and career stage perceived AMDE reporting as unnecessary, not possible or futile due to multiple factors. Physicians viewed AMDEs as an expected part of practice that they could manage by switching to different devices or developing work-around strategies for problematic devices. Physician beliefs and behaviour were reinforced by limited healthcare system capacity and industry responsiveness. The healthcare system lacked processes and infrastructure to detect, capture, share and act on information about AMDEs, and constrained device choice through purchasing contracts. The device industry did not respond to reports of AMDEs from physicians or improve their products based on such reports. As a result, participants said they used devices that were less than ideal for a given patient, leading to suboptimal patient outcomes. Conclusions There may be little point in solely educating or incentivising individual physicians to report AMDEs unless environmental conditions are conducive to doing so. Future research should explore policies that govern AMDEs and investigate how to design and implement postmarket surveillance systems.

Factors constraining patient engagement in implantable medical device discussions and decisions: interviews with physicians

Abstract Objective Patient engagement (PE) is warranted when treatment risks and outcomes are uncertain, as is the case for higher risk medical devices. Previous research found that patients were not engaged in discussions or decisions about implantable medical devices. This study explored physician views about engaging patients in such discussions. Design Qualitative interviews using a basic descriptive approach. Setting Canada. Participants Practicing cardiovascular and orthopaedic physicians. Main outcome measures Level, processes and determinants of PE in medical device discussions and decisions. Results Views were largely similar among 10 cardiovascular and 12 orthopaedic physicians interviewed. Most said that it was feasible to inform and sometimes involve patients in discussions, but not to partner with them in medical device decision-making. PE was constrained by patient (comfort with PE, technical understanding, physiologic/demographic characteristics, prognosis), physician (device preferences, time), health system (purchasing contracts) and device factors (number of devices on market, comparative advantage). A framework was generated to help physicians engage patients in discussions about medical devices, even when decisions may not be preference sensitive due to multiple constraints on choice. Conclusions This study identified that patients are not engaged in discussions or decisions about implantable medical devices. This may be due to multiple constraints. Further research should establish the legitimacy, prevalence and impact of constraining factors, and examine whether and how different levels and forms of PE are needed and feasible.

REGULATING AFFECTIVE LABOR: COMMUNICATION SKILLS TRAINING IN THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY

This paper assesses the significance of a communication skills training program at a hospital in New York City. Qualitative data – including interviews and observations – are taken from an evaluation of the training program. Rather than focus on outcomes, we analyze the political and economic context that produced this course and how the instructor, curriculum, and participants enacted and transformed it. The course took ubiquitous training strategies – such as flexibility, responsibility, and teamwork – and applied them to the specific process of health care work; a process that our evidence suggests is better understood using the concept of affective labor, as opposed to skills, knowledge work, or emotional labor. The course was, we conclude, an attempt to regulate affective labor, in the sense that regulation simultaneously responds to and produces instability.

“We can’t get along without each other”: Qualitative interviews with physicians about device industry representatives, conflict of interest and patient safety

Objectives Physician relationships with device industry representatives have not been previously assessed. This study explored interactions with device industry representatives among physicians who use implantable cardiovascular and orthopedic devices to identify whether conflict of interest (COI) is a concern and how it is managed. Design A descriptive qualitative approach was used. Physicians who implant orthopedic and cardiovascular devices were identified in publicly available directories and web sites, and interviewed about their relationships with device industry representatives. Sampling was concurrent with data collection and analysis. Data were analyzed and discussed using constant comparative technique by all members of the research team. Results Twenty-two physicians (10 cardiovascular, 12 orthopedic) were interviewed. Ten distinct representative roles were identified: purchasing, training, trouble-shooting, supplying devices, assisting with device assembly and insertion, supporting operating room staff, mitigating liability, conveying information about recalls, and providing direct and indirect financial support. Participants recognized the potential for COI but representatives were present for the majority of implantations. Participants revealed a tension between physicians and representatives that was characterized as “symbiotic”, but required physicians to be vigilant about COI and patient safety, particularly because representatives varied regarding disclosure of device defects. They described a concurrent tension between hospitals, whose policies and business practices were focused on cost-control, and physicians who were required to comply with those policies and use particular devices despite concerns about their safety and effectiveness. Conclusions Given the potential for COI and threats to patient safety, further research is needed to establish the clinical implications of the role of, and relationship with device industry representatives; and whether and how hospitals do and should govern interaction with representatives, or support their staff in this regard.

Meta-Review of the Quantity and Quality of Evidence for Knee Arthroplasty Devices

Introduction Some cardiovascular devices are licensed based on limited evidence, potentially exposing patients to devices that are not safe or effective. Research is needed to ascertain if the same is true of other types of medical devices. Knee arthroplasty is a widely-used surgical procedure yet implant failures are not uncommon. The purpose of this study was to characterize available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of knee implants. Methods A review of primary studies included in health technology assessments (HTA) on total (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Biotechnology & BioEngineering Abstracts were searched from 2005 to 2014, plus journal tables of contents and 32 HTA web sites. Patients were aged 18 and older who underwent primary TKA or UKA assessed in cohort or randomized controlled studies. Summary statistics were used to report study characteristics. Results A total of 265 eligible primary studies published between 1986 and 2014 involving 59,217 patients were identified in 10 HTAs (2 low, 7 moderate, 1 high risk of bias). Most evaluated TKA (198, 74.5%). The quality of evidence in primary studies was limited. Most studies were industry-funded (23.8%) or offered no declaration of funding or conflict of interest (44.9%); based on uncontrolled single cohorts (58.5%), enrolled fewer than 100 patients (66.4%), and followed patients for 2 years or less (UKA: single cohort 29.8%, comparative cohort 16.7%, randomized trial 25.0%; TKA: single cohort 25.0%, comparative cohort 31.4%, randomized trial 48.6%). Furthermore, most devices were evaluated in only one study (55.3% TKA implants, 61.1% UKA implants). Conclusions Patients, physicians, hospitals and payers rely on poor-quality evidence to support decisions about knee implants. Further research is needed to explore how decisions about the use of devices are currently made, and how the evidence base for device safety and effectiveness can be strengthened.

Formats of responsibility: elective surgery in the era of evidence-based medicine

This article illustrates what pragmatic sociology refers to as investments in form, by examining the formats created and used by a group of surgeons to determine when elective surgery for pelvic floor disorders could be responsibly undertaken. Drawing upon ethnographic observations of surgical consultations at an academic medical centre in Canada, we show how two specific formats - that the patient is sufficiently bothered and the patient accepts the risks of surgery - allow for justifiable action in conditions of uncertainty and contingency and in light of the demands of dominant imperatives in medicine and health care, especially evidence-based medicine (EBM). We argue that an analytic of justification is necessary for understanding when and how surgery is offered and elected for, and for considering how surgical consultations might be improved.

MEDICAL DEVICE RECALLS IN CANADA FROM 2005 TO 2015

OBJECTIVES Medical devices are ubiquitous in modern medical care. However, little is known about the epidemiology of medical devices in the healthcare marketplace, including the rate at which medical devices are subject to recalls or other advisories. We sought to study the epidemiology of medical devices in Canada, focusing on device recalls. In Canada, a recall may signify a variety of events, ranging from relatively minor field safety notifications, to removal of a product from the marketplace. METHODS We used data from Health Canada to study medical device recalls in Canada from 2005 to 2015. We analyzed the risks of medical device recalls according to the risk class of the device (I lowest; IV highest) and the hazard priority of the recall (Type I highest potential harm; Type III lowest potential harm). RESULTS During a 10-year period, there were 7,226 medical device recalls. Most recalls were for intermediate risk class (Class II, 40.1 percent; Class III, 38.7 percent) medical devices. Among recalled devices, 5.0 percent were judged to have a reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death (Type I recall Hazard Priority classification). While the number of medical devices marketed in Canada is not known, over a similar 10-year period, 24,849 new Class II, II, and IV medical device licenses were issued by Health Canada. CONCLUSIONS Several hundred medical device recalls occur in Canada each year. Further research is needed to characterize the nature of medical device recalls, and to explore how consumers use information about recalls.

Multiple constraints compromise decision-making about implantable medical devices for individual patients: qualitative interviews with physicians

BackgroundLittle research has examined how physicians choose medical devices for treating individual patients to reveal if interventions are needed to support decision-making and reduce device-associated morbidity and mortality. This study explored factors that influence choice of implantable device from among available options.MethodsA descriptive qualitative approach was used. Physicians who implant orthopedic and cardiovascular devices were identified in publicly available directories and web sites. They were asked how they decided what device to use in a given patient, sources of information they consulted, and how patients were engaged in decision-making. Sampling was concurrent with data collection and analysis to achieve thematic saturation. Data were analyzed using constant comparative technique by all members of the research team.ResultsTwenty-two physicians from five Canadian provinces (10 cardiovascular, 12 orthopedic; 8, 10 and 4 early, mid and late career, respectively) were interviewed. Responses did not differ by specialty, geographic region or career stage. Five major categories of themes emerged that all influence decision-making about a range of devices, and often compromise choice of the most suitable device for a given patient, potentially leading to sub-optimal clinical outcomes: lack of evidence on device performance, patient factors, physician factors, organizational and health system factors, and device and device market factors. In the absence of evidence from research or device registries, tacit knowledge from trusted colleagues and less-trusted industry representatives informed device choice. Patients were rarely engaged in decision-making. Physician preference for particular devices was a barrier to acquiring competency in devices potentially more suitable for patients. Access to suitable devices was further limited to the number of comparable devices on the market, local inventory and purchasing contract specifications.ConclusionsThis study revealed that decision-making about devices is complex, cognitively challenging and constrained by several factors limiting access to and use of devices that could optimize patient outcomes. Further research is needed to assess the impact of these constraints on clinical outcomes, and develop interventions that optimize decision-making about device choice for treating given patients.