Innovative medical devices and hospital decision making: a study comparing the views of hospital pharmacists and physicians
Mathilde Billaux A , Isabelle Borget B C , Patrice Prognon A , Judith Pineau A and Nicolas Martelli A B DA Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France. Email: billaux.mathilde@gmail.com; patrice.prognon@egp.aphp.fr; judith.pineau@egp.aphp.fr
B University Paris-Sud, GRADES, Faculty of Pharmacy, 5 rue Jean-Baptiste Clément, 92290 Châtenay-Malabry, France. Email: Isabelle.BORGET@gustaveroussy.fr
C Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistic, Gustave Roussy Institute, 114, rue Edouard-Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif, France.
D Corresponding author. Email: nicolas.martelli@egp.aphp.fr
Australian Health Review 40(3) 257-261 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15039
Submitted: 24 February 2015 Accepted: 17 July 2015 Published: 7 September 2015
Abstract
Objectives Many university hospitals have developed local health technology assessment processes to guide informed decisions about new medical devices. However, little is known about stakeholders’ perceptions and assessment of innovative devices. Herein, we investigated the perceptions regarding innovative medical devices of their chief users (physicians and surgeons), as well as those of hospital pharmacists, because they are responsible for the purchase and management of sterile medical devices. We noted the evaluation criteria used to assess and select new medical devices and suggestions for improving local health technology assessment processes indicated by the interviewees.
Methods We randomly selected 18 physicians and surgeons (nine each) and 18 hospital pharmacists from 18 French university hospitals. Semistructured interviews were conducted between October 2012 and August 2013. Responses were coded separately by two researchers.
Results Physicians and surgeons frequently described innovative medical devices as ‘new’, ‘safe’ and ‘effective’, whereas hospital pharmacists focused more on economic considerations and considered real innovative devices to be those for which no equivalent could be found on the market. No significant difference in evaluation criteria was found between these groups of professionals. Finally, hospital pharmacists considered the management of conflicts of interests in local health technology assessment processes to be an issue, whereas physicians and surgeons did not.
Conclusions The present study highlights differences in perceptions related to professional affiliation. The findings suggest several ways in which current practices for local health technology assessment in French university hospitals could be improved and studied.
What is known about the topic? Hospitals are faced with ever-growing demands for innovative and costly medical devices. To help hospital management deal with technology acquisition issues, hospital-based health technology assessment has been developed to support decisions. However, little is known about the different perceptions of innovative medical devices among practitioners and how different perceptions may affect decision making.
What does this paper add? This paper compares and understands the perceptions of two groups of health professionals concerning innovative devices in the university hospital environment.
What are the implications for practitioners? Such a comparison of viewpoints could facilitate improvements in current practices and decision-making processes in local health technology assessment for these medical products.
Additional keywords: health technology assessment, innovation.
References
[1] Cutler DM. The lifetime costs and benefits of medical technology. J Health Econ 2007; 26 1081–100.| The lifetime costs and benefits of medical technology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18023900PubMed |
[2] Dybczak K., Przywara B. The role of technology in health care expenditure in the EU (No. 400). Brussels: European Communities; 2010.
[3] Sorenson C, Drummond M, Bhuiyan Khan B. Medical technology as a key driver of rising health expenditure: disentangling the relationship. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2013; 5 223–34.
| Medical technology as a key driver of rising health expenditure: disentangling the relationship.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23807855PubMed |
[4] Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003; 63 121–32.
| The development of health technology assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12543525PubMed |
[5] O’Donnell JC, Pham SV, Pashos CL, Miller DW, Smith MD. Health technology assessment: lessons learned from around the world–an overview. Value Health 2009; 12 S1–5.
| Health technology assessment: lessons learned from around the world–an overview.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19523179PubMed |
[6] Hulstaert F, Neyt M, Vinck I, Stordeur S, Huić M, Sauerland S, Kuijpers MR, Abrishami P, Vondeling H, Flamion B, Garattini S, Pavlovic M, van Brabandt H. Pre-market clinical evaluations of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28 278–84.
| Pre-market clinical evaluations of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22980705PubMed |
[7] Cohen D, Billingsley M. Europeans are left to their own devices. BMJ 2011; 342 d2748
| Europeans are left to their own devices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21572130PubMed |
[8] Kramer DB, Xu S, Kesselheim AS. Regulation of medical devices in the United States and European Union. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 848–55.
| Regulation of medical devices in the United States and European Union.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XjsV2qu70%3D&md5=26fab61f7edac2fdd1c91bc31492ffe6CAS | 22332952PubMed |
[9] Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23 425–32.
| Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17937829PubMed |
[10] McGregor M, Brophy J. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: a way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21 263–7.
| 15921068PubMed |
[11] Catananti C, Cicchetti A, Marchetti M. Hospital-based health technology assessment: The experience of Agostino Gemelli University Hospital’s HTA unit. Ital J Public Health 2012; 2 23–8.
[12] Cicchetti A, Marchetti M, Di Bidino R, Corio M. Hospital based health technology assessment: world wide survey. Rome: Health Technology Assessment International; 2008.
[13] Mitchell MD, Williams K, Brennan PJ, Umscheid CA. Integrating local data into hospital-based healthcare technology assessment: two case studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26 294–300.
| Integrating local data into hospital-based healthcare technology assessment: two case studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20584358PubMed |
[14] Boudard A, Martelli N, Prognon P, Pineau J. Clinical studies of innovative medical devices: what level of evidence for hospital-based health technology assessment? J Eval Clin Pract 2013; 19 697–702.
| Clinical studies of innovative medical devices: what level of evidence for hospital-based health technology assessment?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23510375PubMed |
[15] Martelli N, Lelong A-S, Prognon P, Pineau J. Hospital-based health technology assessment for innovative medical devices in university hospitals and the role of hospital pharmacists: learning from international experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013; 29 185–91.
| Hospital-based health technology assessment for innovative medical devices in university hospitals and the role of hospital pharmacists: learning from international experience.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23515134PubMed |
[16] Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000; 320 50–2.
| Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c%2FosV2itg%3D%3D&md5=b6b23cdc429806a4d0020ef23a5ee1f3CAS | 10617534PubMed |
[17] DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF. The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 2006; 40 314–21.
| The qualitative research interview.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16573666PubMed |
[18] Bourbon V, Diebolt V. Acquérir les dispositifs médicaux en toute connaissance de cause: Une enquête de la FHF. Techniques hospitalières 2004; 59 12–15.
[19] Gallego G, Fowler S, Van Gool K. Decision makers’ perceptions of health technology decision making and priority setting at the institutional level. Aust Health Rev 2008; 32 520–7.
| Decision makers’ perceptions of health technology decision making and priority setting at the institutional level.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18666881PubMed |
[20] Biffl WL, Spain DA, Reitsma AM, Minter RM, Upperman J, Wilson M, Adams R, Goldman EB, Angelos P, Krummel T, Greenfield LJ. Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 206 1204–9.
| Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18501819PubMed |
[21] Rogers WA, Lotz M, Hutchison K, Pourmoslemi A, Eyers A. Identifying surgical innovation: a qualitative study of surgeons’ views. Ann Surg 2014; 259 273–8.
| 23787218PubMed |
[22] McKneally MF, Daar AS. Introducing new technologies: protecting subjects of surgical innovation and research. World J Surg 2003; 27 930–4.
| Introducing new technologies: protecting subjects of surgical innovation and research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12822049PubMed |
[23] European Information Network on New and Changing Health Technologies. EuroScan: status report. Birmingham: University of Birmingham; 2005.
[24] Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 159–74.
| The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaE2s7jsFWqtA%3D%3D&md5=05ffcb4229ae6cf99cc2041b7b989088CAS | 843571PubMed |
[25] Stafinski T, Topfer LA, Zakariasen K, Menon D. The role of surgeons in identifying emerging technologies for health technology assessment. Can J Surg 2010; 53 86–92.
| 20334740PubMed |
[26] Reitsma AM, Moreno JD. Ethics of innovative surgery: US surgeons’ definitions, knowledge, and attitudes. J Am Coll Surg 2005; 200 103–10.
| Ethics of innovative surgery: US surgeons’ definitions, knowledge, and attitudes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15631926PubMed |
[27] Saaid HB, Stewart D, England I, Parmar N. The impact of health technology assessment on decision-making processes in public versus not-for-profit private hospitals. Am Med J 2011; 2 72–8.
| The impact of health technology assessment on decision-making processes in public versus not-for-profit private hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[28] Ginsburg ME, Kravitz RL, Sandberg WA. A survey of physician attitudes and practices concerning cost-effectiveness in patient care. West J Med 2000; 173 390–4.
| A survey of physician attitudes and practices concerning cost-effectiveness in patient care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7gt1Khtw%3D%3D&md5=78271b181b4841511ffd3f4f570d3ff7CAS | 11112752PubMed |
[29] Okike K, O’Toole RV, Pollak AN, Bishop JA, McAndrew CM, Mehta S, Cross WW. Okike K, O’Toole RV, Pollak AN, Bishop JA, McAndrew CM, Mehta S, Cross WW. Survey finds few orthopedic surgeons know the costs of the devices they implant. Health Aff 2014; 33 103–9.
| Survey finds few orthopedic surgeons know the costs of the devices they implant.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[30] Sudarsky D, Charania J, Inman A, D’Alfonso S, Lavi S. The impact of industry representative’s visits on utilization of coronary stents. Am Heart J 2013; 166 258–65.
| The impact of industry representative’s visits on utilization of coronary stents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23895808PubMed |
[31] LaViolette PA. Medical devices and conflict of interest: unique issues and an industry code to address them. Cleve Clin J Med 2007; 74 S26–8.
| Medical devices and conflict of interest: unique issues and an industry code to address them.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17469470PubMed |
[32] Baerlocher MO, Millward SF, Cardella JF. Conflicts of interest in the development of new interventional medical devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009; 20 S546–50.
| Conflicts of interest in the development of new interventional medical devices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19560040PubMed |
