Medizinprodukte

Barriers and facilitators of patient access to medical devices in Europe: A systematic literature review

A large number of medical devices (MDs) is available in Europe. Procedures for market approval and reimbursement have been adopted over recent years to promote accelerating patient access to innovative MDs. However, there remains uncertainty and non-transparency regarding these procedures. We provide a structured overview of market approval and reimbursement procedures and practices regarding access to MDs in the EU. Market approval procedures were found to be uniformly described. Data on reimbursement procedures and practices was both heterogeneous and incomplete. Time to MD access was mainly determined by reimbursement procedures. The influence of the patient on time to access was not reported. Prescription practices varied among device types. Barriers to and facilitators of early patient access that set the agenda for policy implications were also analyzed. Barriers were caused by unclear European legislation, complex market approval procedures, lack of data collection, inconsistency in evidence requirements between countries, regional reimbursement and provision, and factors influencing physicians' prescription including the device costs, waiting times and hospital-physician relationships. Facilitators were: available evidence that meets country-specific requirements for reimbursement, diagnosis-related groups, additional payments and research programs. Further research needs to focus on creating a complete overview of reimbursement procedures and practices by extracting further information from sources such as grey literature and interviews with professionals, and defining clear criteria to objectify time to access.

[Handling of retrieved implants in orthopedic surgery : Results of a survey within the framework of the EndoCert initiative]

BACKGROUND

Although investigations of retrieved medical implants can provide valuable information about the cause of the revision, there is a lack of information, which could be avoided by consequent failure analyses. In the framework of the EndoCert certification system it is obligatory to record and report incidents.

OBJECTIVES

The present work examines how the willingness to report has developed in certified arthroplasty centers and which method of handling retrievals is preferred and actually used.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

On the basis of a questionnaire for handling retrievals, all 508 arthroplasty centers that were certified till June 1, 2016, were included (return rate = 97.2%).

RESULTS

A total of 93.3% of the centers have established an algorithm for handling of retrievals and 83.0% of the centers prefer to hand out the retrieval to the patient, while only 25.7% wish to store it in the center for research purposes. In the case of a potential incident as the cause of revision, centers prefer to forward the retrieval to damage analysis, whereby the centers act in different ways, depending on the case. An implant fracture is, e.g., considered a reportable event in most cases without temporal limitation. On the other hand, breakage or failure of surgical instruments is considered not to be reported in the case of more than half of the centers. In 2014 and 2015, approximately 71% of EPZs reported no incidents.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our survey, many certified arthroplasty centers are sensitized to careful handling of retrievals. The treatment of the explanted components is conducted in different ways. The assessment of whether an incident is to be reported shows large differences. In view of the relatively high number of revision surgeries, the number of reports to the authorities appears to be low.