Transmitting Device Identifiers of Implants From the Point of Care to Insurers: A Demonstration Project

Unique Device Identifiers for Medical Devices at 10 Years

This Viewpoint discusses the next steps to realize the public health promise of using unique device identifiers in health information data and outlines the progress and challenges in implementation over the past 10 years.

Advancing Patient Safety Surrounding Medical Devices: Barriers, Strategies, and Next Steps in Health System Implementation of Unique Device Identifiers

Background

The requirement for medical device manufacturers to label their devices with a unique device identifier (UDI) was formalized by the 2013 US Food and Drug Administration Unique Device Identification System Rule. However, parallel regulatory requirement for US health systems to use UDIs, particularly the electronic documentation of UDIs during patient care is lacking. Despite the lack of regulation, some health systems have implemented and are using UDIs. To assess the current state, we studied representative health system UDI implementation experiences, including barriers and the strategies to overcome them, and identified next steps to advance UDI adoption.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were performed with health system personnel involved in UDI implementation in their cardiac catheterization labs or operating rooms. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the framework methodology of Ritchie and Spencer. An expert panel evaluated findings and informed barriers, strategies, and next steps.

Results

Twenty-four interviews at ten health systems were performed. Identified barriers were internal (lack of organizational support, information technology gaps, clinical resistance) and external (information technology vendor resistance, limitations in manufacturer support, gaps in reference data, lack of an overall UDI system). Identified strategies included relationship building, education, engagement, and communication. Next steps to advance UDI adoption focus on education, research, support, and policy.

Conclusions and Implications

Delineation of UDI implementation barriers and strategies provides guidance and support for health systems to adopt the UDI standard and electronically document UDIs during clinical care. Next steps illuminate critical areas for attention to advance UDI adoption and achieve a comprehensive UDI system in health care to strengthen patient care and safety.

Preliminary feasibility assessment of CDM-based active surveillance using current status of medical device data in medical records and OMOP-CDM

In recent years, there has been an emerging interest in the use of claims and electronic health record (EHR) data for evaluation of medical device safety and effectiveness. In Korea, national insurance electronic data interchange (EDI) code has been used as a medical device data source for common data model (CDM). This study performed a preliminary feasibility assessment of CDM-based vigilance. A cross-sectional study of target medical device data in EHR and CDM was conducted. A total of 155 medical devices were finally enrolled, with 58.7% of them having EDI codes. Femoral head prosthesis was selected as a focus group. It was registered in our institute with 11 EDI codes. However, only three EDI codes were converted to systematized nomenclature of medicine clinical terms concept. EDI code was matched in one-to-many (up to 104) with unique device identifier (UDI), including devices classified as different global medical device nomenclature. The use of UDI rather than EDI code as a medical device data source is recommended. We hope that this study will share the current state of medical device data recorded in the EHR and contribute to the introduction of CDM-based medical device vigilance by selecting appropriate medical device data sources.

Advancing Patient Safety Surrounding Medical Devices: A Health System Roadmap to Implement Unique Device Identification at the Point of Care

Background

The US Food and Drug Administration’s Unique Device Identification System Rule of 2013 mandated manufacturers to assign unique device identifiers (UDIs) to their medical devices. Most high-risk (Class III), moderate-risk (Class II) and implantable devices now have UDIs. To achieve the necessary next step for a comprehensive UDI-enabled system for patient safety, UDIs must be electronically documented during patient care, a process not routinely done. The purpose of this research was to study the implementation experiences of diverse health systems in order to develop a roadmap for UDI implementation at the point of care.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with personnel at health systems that had implemented UDI for implantable devices in their cardiac catheterization labs or operating rooms. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the framework methodology of Ritchie and Spencer. Data interpretation involved development of a conceptual model and detailed recommendations for UDI implementation. An expert panel evaluated and provided input on the roadmap.

Results

Twenty-four interviews at ten health systems were conducted by phone. Participants described implementation steps, factors and barriers impacting implementation. Findings populated a UDI implementation roadmap, that includes Foundational Themes, Key Components, Key Steps, UDI Use, and Outcomes.

Conclusions and Implications

The UDI implementation roadmap provides a framework for health systems to address the necessary steps and multilevel factors that underpin UDI implementation at the point of care. It is intended to guide and advance routine electronic documentation of UDIs for devices used during clinical care, the critical next step for a comprehensive UDI-enabled system to enhance medical device safety and effectiveness for patients.

Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post-procedural communication framework

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making and patient-centred communication have become part of pre-procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about their procedure and device.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the patients' knowledge of identifying information for their implanted devices and perspectives on sharing their implanted device information.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted with patients who had received a cardiac or vascular implanted device from one of the study sites within the previous 6 months. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged: lack of awareness of identifying information on implanted devices; value of information on implanted devices; varying trust with sharing device information; perceived risk with sharing device information; and lack of consensus on a systematic process for tracking implanted devices.

DISCUSSION

Patients desire post-procedural information on their implanted device and a designated plan for longitudinal follow-up, but lack trust and perceive risk with broadly sharing their implanted device information.

CONCLUSION

After receiving an implanted device, post-procedural patient communication needs to be expanded to include identifying information on the device including the unique device identifier, how long-term tracking will be supported and the process for notification in case of a problem with the device. This communication should also include education on how sharing device information supports patients' long-term health care, post-market safety surveillance and research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research team included members who were also patients with implanted devices.