USING THE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TOOLBOX TO FACILITATE PROCUREMENT: THE CASE OF SMART PUMPS IN A CANADIAN HOSPITAL

A review of human factors and infusion pumps: lessons for procurement

Integrating advanced technologies like medical devices in healthcare is crucial for addressing critical challenges, but patient safety must remain the top priority. In modern clinical settings, medical devices, such as infusion devices used to administer fluids and drugs, carry risks from use errors, requiring a focus on usability and human factors engineering (HFE). Despite the significance of integrating HFE into technology selection processes, it is often overlooked. A review of five key articles demonstrates how applying HFE principles in procurement strategies can enhance device usability and patient safety. Although designed to reduce medication errors, infusion devices can still cause over-infusion or delays, indicating the need for improved safety features that must be considered in the context of sociotechnical systems. The reviewed studies suggest incorporating HFE in design, purchasing, and implementation to address these issues. The studies highlight various HFE methodologies, showing a wide variation in design, deployment, interpretation, and reporting. This comprehensive examination underscores the importance of standardised evaluations to ensure safer and more effective medical devices, emphasizing the essential role of HFE in advancing patient safety within healthcare settings.

Prioritizing Patient Safety: Analysis of the Procurement Process of Infusion Pumps in Spain

To understand whether patient safety and human factors are considered in healthcare technology procurement, we analyzed the case of infusion pumps as their use critically affects patient safety. We reviewed infusion pump procurements in the Spanish Public Sector Procurement Database. Sixty-three batches in 29 tenders for supplying 12.224 volumetric and syringe infusion pumps and consumables for an overall budget of EUR 30.4 M were identified and reviewed. Concepts related to "ease of use" were identified in the selection requirements of 35 (55.6%) batches, as part of the criteria for the selection of pumps in 23 (36.5%) batches, related to "intuitiveness" in the selection requirements of 35 (55.6%) batches, and in the criteria in 10 (15.9%) batches. No method to evaluate the ease of use, intuitiveness, or usability was mentioned. A review of the procurement teams responsible for the evaluation of the tenders showed no reported human factors or patient safety expertise. We conclude that infusion pump procurement considers usability as a relevant criterion for selection. However, no human factor experts nor specific methods for evaluation of the technology in this field are usually defined. Potential room for refining the selection of healthcare technology to improve patient safety is detected.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review

Health care budgets in high-income countries are having issues coping with unsustainable growth in demand, particularly in the hospital setting. Despite this, implementing tools systematising priority setting and resource allocation decisions has been challenging. This study answers two questions: (1) what are the barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting tools in the hospital setting of high-income countries? and (2) what is their fidelity? A systematic review using the Cochrane methods was conducted including studies of hospital-related priority setting tools reporting barriers or facilitators for implementation, published after the year 2000. Barriers and facilitators were classified using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity was assessed using priority setting tool's standards. Out of thirty studies, ten reported program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), twelve multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), six health technology assessment (HTA) related frameworks, and two, an ad hoc tool. Barriers and facilitators were outlined across all CFIR domains. Implementation factors not frequently observed, such as 'evidence of previous successful tool application', 'knowledge and beliefs about the intervention' or 'external policy and incentives' were reported. Conversely, some constructs did not yield any barrier or facilitator including 'intervention source' or 'peer pressure'. PBMA studies satisfied the fidelity criteria between 86% and 100%, for MCDA it varied between 36% and 100%, and for HTA it was between 27% and 80%. However, fidelity was not related to implementation. This study is the first to use an implementation science approach. Results represent the starting point for organisations wishing to use priority setting tools in the hospital setting by providing an overview of barriers and facilitators. These factors can be used to assess readiness for implementation or to serve as the foundation for process evaluations. Through our findings, we aim to improve the uptake of priority setting tools and support their sustainable use.

Sedimentation of health technology assessment in hospitals: a scoping review

The aim of this study was to analyze the level of sedimentation of hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA) in diverse contexts. A scoping review was conducted according to the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute, whose data analysis model consisted of the combination of Donabedian's structure, process, and outcome categories and the dimensions of the project Adopting Hospital Based Health Technology Assessment in European Union (AdHopHTA). We identified 270 studies, and after removing duplicates and reading full texts, 36 references met the eligibility criteria. Thirty-six hospitals were identified, of which there were 24 large-scale hospitals with extra bed capacity. Twenty-three hospitals were affiliated with universities. Canada stood out with five university hospitals, four of which with public funding. Half of the identified hospitals had hospital-based HTA units (18/36). Hospitals with sedimented levels of HTA corresponded to 75% of the sample (27/36), and the remainder had partially sedimented HTA, or 25% of the hospitals in the review (9/36). There were no hospitals with incipient sedimentation. Measuring the level of HTA sedimentation in the hospitals contributed to understanding how their participation has occurred in the field of hospital-based HTA. This study revealed the importance of identifying factors such as sustainability, growth, and evolution of hospital-based HTA in countries with and without a tradition in this field.

Modes of coordination for health technology adoption: Health Technology Assessment agencies and Group Procurement Organizations in a polycentric regulatory regime

The challenge of novel and high cost health technologies has encouraged the growth of regulatory agencies such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organizations and Group Procurement Organizations (GPO). Yet the existence of several agencies in the same polycentric regulatory regime raises questions about whether and how their work can be coordinated. Drawing on a case study of GPOs and HTA agencies across four provinces in Canada, involving document review and key informant interviews (n = 44) conducted between 2013 and 2016, we explore the separate evolution of these agencies, emerging connections between them for non-drug technologies, and the organizational processes and evaluative judgments that underpin coordination efforts. HTA agencies and GPOs developed separately; connections emerged recently in three provinces and suggest four modes of coordination. One mode aligns most closely with that recommended by health economists and HTA practitioners, whereby HTA precedes procurement, with coverage decisions informing technology acquisition. The second mode is a version of the first, where procurement refers cases to HTA for coverage or technology management support; unlike the first, it recognizes procurement's evaluative strengths. Yet both the first and second modes focus on exceptional cases and will be infrequent. The third mode is more systemic, reflecting a generalized complementary of purpose as public agencies. HTA could support GPOs in contested technology acquisition efforts through timely and responsive input, while procurement could expand HTA's impact and inform HTA's growing interest in responsible innovation and environmental sustainability. The final mode is non-coordination, reflecting the potential for agencies to occupy quite distinct regulatory niches within the same regime. We conclude that consistency and convergence around a single model of resource allocation is not inevitable; nor is it necessary for coordinated effort. Thus, where differences in regulatory practice and epistemology persist, mutual accommodation and shared learning may prove most productive.

Overcoming Challenges with the Adoption of Point-of-Care Testing: From Technology Push and Clinical Needs to Value Propositions

Major technical challenges often prevent developers from producing new point-of-care technologies that deliver the required clinical performance in the intended settings of use. But even when devices meet clinical requirements, they can fail to be adopted and successfully implemented. Adoption barriers occur when decision makers do not understand the "value proposition" of new technologies. Current discussions of value in the context of point-of-care testing focus predominantly on the intended use and performance of the device from the manufacturer's point-of-view. However, the perspective of potential adopters in determining whether new devices provide value is also important, as is the opinion of all stakeholders who will be impacted. Incorporating value concepts into decisions made across the full development-to-adoption continuum can increase the likelihood that point-of-care testing will have the desired impact on health care delivery and patient outcomes. This article discusses how various approaches to technology development impact adoption and compares the characteristics of these approaches to emerging value concepts. It also provides an overview of value initiatives and tools that are being developed to support the evaluation of value propositions. These are presented for a range of technology adoption decision contexts, with particular applicability to point-of-care testing. Expanding the focus of research to address gaps in both the creation and evaluation of value propositions is imperative in order for value concepts to positively influence the adoption of point-of-care testing.

Artificial Intelligence and Health Technology Assessment: Anticipating a New Level of Complexity

Artificial intelligence (AI) is seen as a strategic lever to improve access, quality, and efficiency of care and services and to build learning and value-based health systems. Many studies have examined the technical performance of AI within an experimental context. These studies provide limited insights into the issues that its use in a real-world context of care and services raises. To help decision makers address these issues in a systemic and holistic manner, this viewpoint paper relies on the health technology assessment core model to contrast the expectations of the health sector toward the use of AI with the risks that should be mitigated for its responsible deployment. The analysis adopts the perspective of payers (ie, health system organizations and agencies) because of their central role in regulating, financing, and reimbursing novel technologies. This paper suggests that AI-based systems should be seen as a health system transformation lever, rather than a discrete set of technological devices. Their use could bring significant changes and impacts at several levels: technological, clinical, human and cognitive (patient and clinician), professional and organizational, economic, legal, and ethical. The assessment of AI's value proposition should thus go beyond technical performance and cost logic by performing a holistic analysis of its value in a real-world context of care and services. To guide AI development, generate knowledge, and draw lessons that can be translated into action, the right political, regulatory, organizational, clinical, and technological conditions for innovation should be created as a first step.

The Lean and Agile Multi-dimensional Process (LAMP) - a new framework for rapid and iterative evidence generation to support health-care technology design and development

Introduction: Health technology assessments (HTA) are tools for policymaking and resource allocation. Early HTAs are increasingly used in design and development of new technologies. Conducting early HTAs is challenging, due to a lack of evidence and significant uncertainties in the technology and the market. A multi-disciplinary approach is considered essential. However, an operational framework that can enable the integration of multi-dimensional evidence into commercialization remains lacking.Areas covered: We developed the Lean and Agile Multi-dimensional Process (LAMP), an early HTA framework, for embedding commercial decision-making in structured evidence generation activities, divided into phases. Diverse evidence in unmet needs, user acceptance, cost-effectiveness, and market competitiveness are being generated in increasing depth. This supports the emergence of design and value propositions that align technology capabilities and clinical and user needs.Expert opinion: We have been applying LAMP to working with medical device and diagnostic industry in the UK. The framework can be adapted to suit different technologies, decision needs, time scales, and resources. LAMP offers a practical solution to the multi-disciplinary approach. Methodologists drive the process by performing evidence generation and synthesis as and by enabling interactions between manufacturers, designers, clinicians, and other key stakeholders.

A Hazard Analysis of Class I Recalls of Infusion Pumps

BACKGROUND

The adverse event report of medical devices is one of the postmarket surveillance tools used by regulators to monitor device performance, detect potential device-related safety issues, and contribute to benefit-risk assessments of these products. However, with the development of the related technologies and market, the number of adverse events has also been on the rise, which in turn results in the need to develop efficient tools that help to analyze adverse events monitoring data and to identify risk signals.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to establish a hazard classification framework of medical devices and to apply it over practical adverse event data on infusion pumps. Subsequently, it aimed to analyze the risks of infusion pumps and to provide a reference for the risk management of this type of device.

METHODS

The authors define a general hierarchical classification of medical device hazards. This classification is combined with the Trace Intersecting Theory to form a human-machine-environment interaction model. Such a model was applied to the dataset of 2001 to 2017 class I infusion pump recalls extracted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website. This dataset does not include cases involving illegal factors.

RESULTS

The proposed model was used for conducting hazard analysis on 70 cases of class I infusion pump recalls by the FDA. According to the analytical results, an important source of product technical risk was that the infusion pumps did not infuse accurate dosage (ie, over- or underdelivery of fluid). In addition, energy hazard and product component failure were identified as the major hazard form associated with infusion pump use and as the main direct cause for adverse events in the studied cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed human-machine-environment interaction model, when applied to adverse event data, can help to identify the hazard forms and direct causes of adverse events associated with medical device use.

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders

OBJECTIVES

Procurement's important role in healthcare decision making has encouraged criticism and calls for greater collaboration with health technology assessment (HTA), and necessitates detailed analysis of how procurement approaches the decision task.

METHODS

We reviewed tender documents that solicit medical technologies for patient care in Canada, focusing on request for proposal (RFP) tenders that assess quality and cost, supplemented by a census of all tender types. We extracted data to assess (i) use of group purchasing organizations (GPOs) as buyers, (ii) evaluation criteria and rubrics, and (iii) contract terms, as indicators of supplier type and market conditions.

RESULTS

GPOs were dominant buyers for RFPs (54/97) and all tender types (120/226), and RFPs were the most common tender (92/226), with few price-only tenders (11/226). Evaluation criteria for quality were technical, including clinical or material specifications, as well as vendor experience and qualifications; "total cost" was frequently referenced (83/97), but inconsistently used. The most common (47/97) evaluative rubric was summed scores, or summed scores after excluding those below a mandatory minimum (22/97), with majority weight (64.1 percent, 62.9 percent) assigned to quality criteria. Where specified, expected contract lengths with successful suppliers were high (mean, 3.93 years; average renewal, 2.14 years), and most buyers (37/42) expected to award to a single supplier.

CONCLUSIONS

Procurement's evaluative approach is distinctive. While aiming to go beyond price in the acquisition of most medical technologies, it adopts a narrow approach to assessing quality and costs, but also attends to factors little considered by HTA, suggesting opportunities for mutual lesson learning.

A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with low back pain about non-surgical treatments: identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels

Objectives: Hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) needs to consider all relevant data to help decision making, including patients' preferences. In this study, we comprehensively describe the process of identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods: A mixed-methods design was used to identify attributes and levels explaining low back pain (LBP) patients' choice for a non-surgical treatment. This design combined a systematic literature review with a patients' focus group, one-on-one interactions with experts and patients, and discussions with stakeholder committee members. Following the patient's focus group, preference exercises were conducted. A consensus about the attributes and levels was researched during discussions with committee members. Results: The literature review yielded 40 attributes to consider in patients' treatment choice. During the focus group, one additional attribute emerged. The preference exercises allowed selecting eight attributes for the DCE. These eight attributes and their levels were discussed and validated by the committee members who helped reframe two levels in one of the attributes and delete one attribute. The final seven attributes were: treatment modality, pain reduction, onset of treatment efficacy, duration of efficacy, difficulty in daily living activities, sleep problem, and knowledge about their body and pain. Conclusion: This study is one of the few to comprehensively describe the selection process of attributes and levels for a DCE. This may help ensure transparency and judge the quality of the decision-making process. In the context of a HB-HTA unit, this strengthens the legitimacy to perform a DCE to better inform decision makers in a patient-centered care approach.

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for health technology assessment: the Queensland Health experience

Objectives In determining whether new health technologies should be funded, health technology assessment (HTA) committees prefer explicit to implicit methods of analysis in enhancing transparency and consistency of decision making. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for the Queensland Department of Health HTA program committee, which weighted decision making criteria according to their perceived importance as determined by group consensus. Methods The criteria used in the MCDA framework were identified by reviewing the five unweighted criteria used in the existing process, consultation with committee members and literature review. Criteria were clearly defined and ordinal categories of lowest to highest preferred were assigned against which technology submissions would be rated. Criteria weights were determined through a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey of committee members using validated software. Mean weighted technology scores were then used to guide deliberative discussions in determining final funding decisions. Results The MCDA framework created one additional criterion to the previous five. The criteria and their mean weights identified through the DCE survey were clinical benefit and safety (27.2%), quality of evidence (19.2%), implementation capacity (16.9%), innovation (15.4%), burden of disease and clinical need (13.3%) and societal and ethical values (8.0%). Criterion weights varied considerably between individual committee members, with one criterion having a difference of 36.9% between the highest and lowest preference weights. Following deliberative discussions, all but one of 10 submissions were awarded funding. The submission not supported received the third lowest score through the MCDA model. Conclusions This pilot application of an MCDA framework, as a complement to committee deliberation, conferred greater transparency and objectivity on HTA assessment of technologies. The framework converted an implicit, unweighted review process to one that is more explicit, flexible in weighting importance and pragmatic. What is known about the topic? HTA programs involve complex decision-making processes requiring the consideration of multiple criteria. Explicit methods of analysis that use weighted criteria according to their relative importance enhance transparency and consistency of decision making by HTA committees, and are preferred to implicit reviews using unweighted criteria. What does this paper add? This article describes the development and piloting of an MCDA framework that aims to improve transparency, objectivity and consistency of funding decisions of the Queensland HTA committee. Criteria were identified through a review of current processes, committee discussions and a literature review, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality of evidence system. Criteria were weighted using a discrete choice experiment involving committee members. Using weighted criteria, mean technology scores were calculated and incorporated into deliberative discussions to determine funding decisions. What are the implications for practitioners? The MCDA framework described here converted a more implicit, unweighted process to one that was more pragmatic, explicit and flexible in scoring HTA submissions. This framework may be useful to other HTA programs and could be expanded to resource allocation decision making in many other healthcare settings.

Canadian French translation and linguistic validation of the child health utility 9D (CHU9D)

BACKGROUND

Several preference based measures are validated for adults in cost utility analysis, but less are available for children and many researchers have criticized the quality of pediatric economic studies. The objective of this study was to perform a Canadian French translation and linguistic validation of the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) that was conceptually equivalent to the original English version for use in Canada.

METHODS

The translation and linguistic validation were realized by ICON Clinical Research (UK) Limited in association with the developer of the CHU9D and Canadian collaborators. This was done in accordance with industry standards and the guidance of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. Five steps were considered: concept elaboration; forward translation; back translation; linguistic validation; proofreading and final verification.

RESULTS

The CHU9D Canadian French translation and linguistic validation were realized without any major difficulties. Only 3 changes were made after the forward translation and 5 after the back translation. The result of back translation was very similar to the original English version. Six additional changes suggested by the developer team were accepted and the linguistic validation with five children led to 2 additional changes. Most changes were generally to change one word to better sounding Canadian French.

CONCLUSION

We produced a Canadian French translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D). Before being used in clinical settings and research projects, the final Canadian French translation needs to be validated for metrological qualities of reliability and validity.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT UNIT PROCESSES FOR THE VALIDATION OF AN INFORMATION TOOL TO INVOLVE PATIENTS IN THE SAFETY OF THEIR CARE

Introduction:

Patients and families play an important role in preventing adverse events. The quality council at our hospital produced a communication tool in considering the main causes of adverse events and requested the health technology assessment (HTA) unit to validate it.

Objectives:

Assess the validity of the content of a tablemat sticker as an information tool for hospitalized patients.

Methods:

A qualitative validation was first performed with individual interviews and focus groups to evaluate the understanding of the content. The tool was modified and as a second step, a survey was conducted on patients and their families from a surgical care unit to validate their understanding and relevance of the content.

Results:

From the survey, patients and families found the tablemat attractive and stimulating (97 percent). It encouraged them to communicate with staff about the safety of their care (84 percent). They understood well the objective (79 percent) and text (90 percent), but less for the pictograms (30 percent to 62 percent). The communication and recommendations to avoid falling were good and 99 percent were wearing the medical identification. However, it was not clear that these indicators represented the real concerns of the patients and healthcare staff because no user evaluation was done when developing the tool.

Conclusions:

The tool was well understood, but some improvements are needed considering that pictograms were not always well understood and so need careful consideration from patient perspective. The HTA unit recommended conducting an unbiased survey to assess the concerns of patients and professionals to identify the most relevant indicators.

Single-use flexible bronchoscopes compared with reusable bronchoscopes: Positive organizational impact but a costly solution

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

There is at present no standard methodology to analyse the organizational impacts (OIs) of medical devices (MDs), and the field is still in its infancy. The aim of the present study was to assess, at a hospital level, the organizational and economic impacts of the introduction of a new MD, specifically the single-use flexible bronchoscope (FB).

METHODS

Both the organizational and economic impacts of the single-use FB were evaluated in comparison with the reusable FB currently used as standard practice in our institution. First, process maps were created for both devices (reusable and single use). Based on the 12 types of OI defined by Roussel et al, interviews were conducted with all stakeholders, and the positive and negative aspects of the reusable and single-use processes were analysed. In a second step, microcosting analysis was conducted to determine the most economical balance in use of the 2 technologies.

RESULTS

Process maps highlighted the complexity of the reusable device process when compared with the single-use device process. Among the 12 types of OI, the single-use FB process scored better than the reusable FB process in 75% of cases. With the "fleet" of 15 reusable FBs available in our institution, using single-use FBs would represent an extra cost of €154 per procedure. Single-use and reusable devices would have the same cost (€232 per procedure) with a theoretical annual activity of 328 bronchoscopies, which is much lower than our current activity (1644 procedures per year).

CONCLUSIONS

Organizational impact should be considered when assessing MDs. We show in this study that from an organizational viewpoint, there are many advantages to using single-use bronchoscopes. However, in economic impact, it is more cost-effective for our institution, with more than 1500 bronchoscopies performed annually, to use reusable devices.