MATCH: a new industry-focused approach to medical device development

MATCH (Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare) is a new collaboration in the UK that aims to support the healthcare sector by creating methods to assess the value of medical devices from concept through to mature product. A major aim of MATCH is to encourage the inclusion of the user throughout the product lifecycle in order to achieve devices that truly meet the requirements of their users. A review of the published literature indicates that user requirements are mainly collected during the design and evaluation stage of the product lifecycle whilst other areas, including the concept stage, have less user involvement. Complementing the literature review is an in-depth consultation with the medical device industry, which has identified a number of barriers encountered by companies when attempting to capture user requirements. These will be addressed by a number of case study projects, performed in collaboration with our industrial partners, that will examine the application and utility of different approaches to collecting and analysing data on user requirements. MATCH is focused on providing advice to device developers on how to select and apply methods that have maximum theoretical strength, practical application, cost-effectiveness and likelihood of wide sector acceptance. Feedback will be sought in order to ensure that the needs of the diverse medical device sector are met.

How does the healthcare industry involve users in medical device development? Pointers for UbiHealth

This paper introduces the Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare (MATCH) and outlines the problem of integrating a user-centred approach for development of medical devices together with the information and communication technology environments in which they are increasingly required to operate. We highlight some of the regulatory requirements that are relevant to user needs consideration in medical device development. Finally, we reveal a range of limitations in the current practice of the medical device industry in the area of user needs capture, based on responses from interviews with MATCH’s industry partners.

Managing the risks of medical technology: Do hazard surveillance systems provide an early warning of medical device problems?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for risk assessment and risk management in the post-market surveillance of the U.S. medical device industry. One of the FDA regulatory mechanisms, the Medical Device Reporting System (MDR) is an adverse event reporting system intended to provide the FDA with advance warning of device problems. It includes voluntary reporting for individuals, and mandatory reporting for device manufacturers. ^ In a study of alleged breast implant safety problems, this research examines the organizational processes by which the FDA gathers data on adverse events and uses adverse event reporting systems to assess and manage risk. The research reviews the literature on problem recognition, risk perception, and organizational learning to understand the influence highly publicized events may have on adverse event reporting. Understanding the influence of an environmental factor, such as publicity, on adverse event reporting can provide insight into the question of whether the FDA's adverse event reporting system operates as an early warning system for medical device problems. ^ The research focuses on two main questions. The first question addresses the relationship between publicity and the voluntary and mandatory reporting of adverse events. The second question examines whether government agencies make use of these adverse event reports. ^ Using quantitative and qualitative methods, a longitudinal study was conducted of the number and content of adverse event reports regarding breast implants filed with the FDA's medical device reporting system during 1985–1991. To assess variation in publicity over time, the print media were analyzed to identify articles related to breast implant failures. ^ The exploratory findings suggest that an increase in media activity is related to an increase in voluntary reporting, especially following periods of intense media coverage of the FDA. However, a similar relationship was not found between media activity and manufacturers' mandatory adverse event reporting. A review of government committee and agency reports on the FDA published during 1976–1996 produced little evidence to suggest that publicity or MDR information contributed to problem recognition, agenda setting, or the formulation of policy recommendations. ^ The research findings suggest that the reporting of breast implant problems to FDA may reflect the perceptions and concerns of the reporting groups, a barometer of the volume and content of media attention. ^

Anti-biofilm activity of ultrashort cinnamic acid peptide derivatives against medical device-related pathogens

The threat of antimicrobial resistance has placed increasing emphasis on the development of innovative approaches to eradicate multidrug-resistant pathogens. Biofilm-forming microorganisms, for example, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus, are responsible for increased incidence of biomaterial infection, extended hospital stays and patient morbidity and mortality. This paper highlights the potential of ultrashort tetra-peptide conjugated to hydrophobic cinnamic acid derivatives. These peptidomimetic molecules demonstrate selective and highly potent activity against resistant biofilm forms of Gram-positive medical device-related pathogens. 3-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)propionic)-Orn-Orn-Trp-Trp-NH2 displays particular promise with minimum biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) values of 125 µg/ml against methicillin sensitive (ATCC 29213) and resistant (ATCC 43300) S. aureus and activity shown against biofilm forms of Escherichia coli (MBEC: 1000 µg/ml). Kill kinetics confirms complete eradication of established 24-h biofilms at MBEC with 6-h exposure. Reduced cell cytotoxicity, relative to Gram-positive pathogens, was proven via tissue culture (HaCaT) and haemolysis assays (equine erythrocytes).

Existing in nature as part of the immune response, antimicrobial peptides display great promise for exploitation by the pharmaceutical industry in order to increase the library of available therapeutic molecules. Ultrashort variants are particularly promising for translation as clinical therapeutics as they are more cost-effective, easier to synthesise and can be tailored to specific functional requirements based on the primary sequence allowing factors such as spectrum of activity to be varied.

Interorganizational innovation and collaboration in the UK medical device sector

Interorganizational team research is a growing body of literature and research has started toexamine team related factors such as interorganizational trust (i.e. Stock, 2006) in theinterorganizational setting. This research applies insights from the intraorganizational teamfield into the interorganizational team setting in order to determine the team related factorspertaining to effective collaboration in medical device innovation projects.Interorganizational collaboration has been a persistent feature within the interorganizationalrelations literature, due to the added benefits that can come with working collaborativelytowards a common goal (Berg-Weger & Schnieder, 1998). While much research has exploredthe structures and performance outcomes of engaging in this cross-boundary working, theliterature is sparse with respect to interpersonal relationships, practices and processes leadingto effective collaboration (Bergenholtz & Waldstrom, 2011; Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa & Bargherz,2015). An interpretivist perspective has informed an exploratory mixed methods approach to datacollection, with contextual insights informing each phase of data collection. Three exploratoryphases of data collection have provided (1) qualitative ethnography data, (1i) qualitativeinterview data and (2) quantitative survey data. The NHS has recently set out agendas to increase innovative procurement (Department ofHealth, 2008), work more closely with industry and SMEs (Innovation and Procurement Plan:Department of Health, 2009) and to increase innovative practice (IHW: NHS, 2011). SMEsdeveloping novel medical devices require input from the NHS to ensure that their devices areclinically applicable and therefore will be adopted by the NHS. These contextual insightsprovide the backdrop for Studies 1i and 2. The findings suggest that the intraorganizational team literature can be extended into theinterorganizational collaboration literature, whilst also explaining the factors relating toeffectiveness and success of interorganizational team innovation.

Medical Device Development: the challenge for ergonomics

High quality, well designed medical devices are necessary to provide safe and effective clinical care for patients as well as to ensure the health and safety of professional and lay device users. Capturing the user requirements of users and incorporating these into design is an essential component of this. The field of ergonomics has an opportunity to assist, not only with this area, but also to encourage a more general consideration of the user during medical device development. A review of the literature on methods for assessing user requirements in engineering and ergonomics found that little published work exists on the ergonomics aspects of medical device development. In particular there is little advice available to developers on which issues to consider during design and development or recommendations for good practice in terms of the methods and approaches needed to capture the full range of user requirements. The Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare (MATCH) is a research collaboration that is working in conjunction with industrial collaborators to apply ergonomics methods to real case study projects with the ultimate aim of producing an industry-focused guide to applying ergonomics principles in medical device development.

A prospective window into medical device-related pressure ulcers in intensive care

Objective: To determine the prevalence, severity, location, etiology, treatment, and healing of medical device-related pressure ulcers in intensive care patients for up to 7 days. Design: Prospective repeated measures study. Setting and participants: Patients in 6 intensive care units of 2 major medical centers, one each in Australia and the United States, were screened 1 day per month for 6 months. Those with device-related ulcers were followed daily up to 7 days. Outcome measures: Device-related ulcer prevalence, pain, infection, treatment, healing. Results: 15/483 patients had device-related ulcers and 9/15 with 11 ulcers were followed beyond screening. Their mean age was 60.5 years, most were men, over-weight, and at increased pressure ulcer risk. Endotracheal and nasogastric tubes were the cause of most device-related ulcers. Repositioning was the most frequent treatment. 4/11 ulcers healed within the 7 day observation period. Conclusion: Device-related ulcer prevalence was 3.1%, similar to that reported in the limited literature available, indicating an ongoing problem. Systematic assessment and repositioning of devices are the mainstays of care. We recommend continued prevalence determination and that nurses remain vigilant to prevent device-related ulcers, especially in patients with nasogastric and endotracheal tubes.

Understanding Medical Device Patenting and Clinical Trials for Product Leadership

Unmet clinical needs remain the primary driving force for innovations in medical devices. While appropriate mechanisms to protect these innovative outcomes are essential, the performance of clinical trials to ensure safety is also mandated before the invention is ready for public use. Literature explaining the relationship between patenting activities and clinical trials of medical devices is scarce. Linking patent ownership to clinical trials may imply product leadership and value chain control. In this paper, we use patent data from Indian Patent Office (IPO), PCT, and data from Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) to identify whether patent assignees have any role in leading as primary sponsors of clinical trials. A total of 42 primary sponsors are identified from the CTRI database in India. Number of patents awarded to these primary sponsors in the particular medical device, total number of patents awarded to the primary sponsor in all technologies, total number of patents in the specific medical device technology provides an indication of leadership and control in the value chain.