scholarly journals Classification and evaluation of medical devices

2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 42-45
Author(s):  
Edina Vranić

Medical devices and medical disposables contribute significantly to the quality and effectiveness of the health care system. It is necessary to commit scientifically sound regulatory environment that will provide consumers with the best medical care. This includes continued services to small manufacturers, readily available guidance on FDA requirements, predictable and reasonable response times on applications for marketing, and equitable enforcement. But in the public interest, this commitment to the industry must be coupled with a reciprocal commitment: that medical device firms will meet high standards in the design, manufacture, and evaluation of their products. The protections afforded our consumer, and the benefits provided the medical device industry, cannot be underestimated.

Author(s):  
Karsten Vrangbæk

Scandinavian health systems have traditionally been portrayed as relatively similar examples of decentralised, public integrated health systems. However, recent decades have seen significant public policy developments in the region that should lead us to modify our understanding. Several dimensions are important for understanding such developments. First, several of the countries have undergone structural reforms creating larger governance units and strengthening the state level capacity to regulate professionals and steer developments at the regional and municipal levels. Secondly, the three Nordic countries studied experienced an increase in the purchase of voluntary health insurance and the use of private providers. This introduces several issues for the equality of users and the efficiency of the system. This paper will investigate such trends and address the question: Is the Nordic health system model changing, and what are the consequences for trust, professional regulation and the public interest?


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 116-117
Author(s):  
Jana Hemmerling ◽  
Karolin Eberle ◽  
Sara Hogger ◽  
Maike Gupta ◽  
Anna Ullraum ◽  
...  

INTRODUCTION:National Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) for medical devices are crucial to regulate the quality and costs of healthcare systems. However, there is diversity in several aspects among European countries. Consequently, controversial results might arise, generating contrary reimbursement decisions. The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) is an interface platform for the harmonization of HTA information across Europe. The European Commission expects national uptake of a European HTA. Thus, European HTAs might overcome the diversity of national HTA requirements.METHODS:We aimed to compare German and European HTAs for medical devices regarding processes, methods, timelines, and involvement of medical device companies. Therefore we analyzed guidelines, requirements, and output of EUnetHTA and compared those aspects with the German G-BA (Federal Joint Committee, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) standard and IQWiG (Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen) methods.RESULTS:We found differences between the European and German HTAs for medical devices regarding timelines, involvement of medical device companies, body of evidence, use of surrogate endpoints, and methodology. European HTAs for medical devices reflect the clinical reality by integrating the existing evidence (including real world data) and by using comprehensive statistical methods for medical devices. In contrast, German HTAs for medical device-based technologies are long lasting and are often restricted to a small body of evidence.CONCLUSIONS:As a conclusion, similar to pharmaceuticals, the European HTA framework might also become a worldwide platform for HTAs of medical device-based technologies with the potential to harmonize reimbursement decisions and patients health care across countries on the basis of clinical reality.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175628482093518
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Bove ◽  
Tommaso Schepis ◽  
Ivo Boškoski ◽  
Rosario Landi ◽  
Beatrice Orlandini ◽  
...  

On 31 December 2019, the WHO China Country Office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology detected in Wuhan (Hubei Province of China). In January 2020, a new coronavirus named SARS-CoV2 was isolated and, since that time, SARS-CoV2 related disease (COVID-19) rapidly spread all over the world becoming pandemic in March 2020. The COVID-19 outbreak dramatically affected the public-health and the health-care facilities organization. Bilio-pancreatic endoscopy is considered a high-risk procedure for cross-contamination and, even though it is not directly involved in COVID-19 diagnosis and management, its reorganization is crucial to guarantee high standards of care minimizing the risk of SARS-CoV2 transmission among patients and health-care providers. Bilio-pancreatic endoscopic procedures often require a short physical distance between the endoscopist and the patient for a long period of time, a frequent exchange of devices, the involvement of a large number of personnel, the use of complex endoscopes difficult to reprocess. On this basis, endoscopic units should take precautions with adjusted management of bilio-pancreatic endoscopy. The aim of this article is to discuss the approach to bilio-pancreatic endoscopy in the COVID-19 era with focus on diagnostic algorithms, indications, management of the endoscopic room, proper use of Personal Protective Equipment and correct reprocessing of instrumentation.


2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 604-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila A.M. McLean

A medical profession which did not seek improved means to conquer disease would be condemned for dereliction of its duty, Members of the public will not accept the current state of the medical arts as finite but feel justified in expecting the development of more effective therapies for illness, and the promotion of improved means of preventive care.With this assertion, the distinguished academic, Bernard Dickens, places research firmly in the domain of the public interest. Foster agrees, saying that, “[t]o improve medical care as much as we can, if not to perfect it, means that we have to accept the need for research.” Giesen adds a further emphasis to the search for medical advancements, saying that “freedom of research and scientific inquiry is, in itself, an important aspect of open societies.“


2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-20
Author(s):  
Marco Huesch ◽  
Robert Szczerba

Abstract Barriers and delays to medical device innovation are often solely attributable to the regulatory environment instead of both the current state of innovation practices and product development processes in the industry. Increasing the pace of innovation while reducing costs requires the creation of a new approach that fits both established medical device corporations as well as entrepreneurial start-ups. In this commentary we advance the concept of innovation platforms to facilitate ideation in the medical device space. Such platforms could also allow the full health benefits from individual medical devices to be reaped, by overcoming interoperability concerns through simulation and credentialing. Given the dramatic benefits of medical device success, such non-traditional business models for development may be potential solutions for industry, users and regulators.


2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Weifan Zhang ◽  
Rebecca Liu ◽  
Chris Chatwin

Medical device regulations across the globe have significant variations. The Chinese medical device market, like China’s economy, is developing rapidly. This article reviews the medical device regulations in China and illustrates the major changes that have been recently implemented according to the new medical device regulations that came into force on the 1st June, 2014. Most regulatory research has focused on the US and EU medical device regulations with little written about the Chinese medical device regulations. The purpose of this article is to bridge the research gap and to introduce the Chinese medical devices regulatory environment to investors or companies who are engaged in the medical device market or doing business in China


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document