Adopting Identification Standards in the Medical Device Supply Chain

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yousef Abdulsalam ◽  
Dari Alhuwail ◽  
Eugene S. Schneller
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Business Intelligence ◽  
Return On Investment ◽  
Survey Methods ◽  
Device Identification ◽  
Medical Device Manufacturers ◽  
High Level ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently mandated that medical device manufacturers adopt Unique Device Identification (UDI) standards on their medical devices. The benefits that UDI brings to hospitals and patients is relatively obvious, including inventory transparency, product safety, product equivalency, business intelligence. However, adoption by manufacturers, who face the mandate, has been slow in part because the benefit to them is not as readily perceived. This study focuses on the incentives, barriers, and benefits that medical device manufacturers perceive in UDI adoption. This study seeks to understand which adoption pressures are driving manufacturers to act, and attempts to gauge the benefits to manufacturers from UDI adoption. Through survey methods, the evidence suggests that medical device manufacturers implement UDI largely as a response to the coercive and normative pressures they face. There continues to be a high level of uncertainty regarding the return on investment for the medical device manufacturers, particularly from the late adopters.

scholarly journals Using the monocyte activation test as a stand-alone release test for medical devices

ALTEX ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 151-156
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Brown
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Monocyte Activation ◽  
Device Development ◽  
Medical Device Manufacturers ◽  
Regulatory Evaluation ◽  
Limulus Amebocyte Lysate Test ◽  
The U.S

Monocyte activation tests (MAT) are widely available but rarely used in place of animal-based pyrogen tests for safety assessment of medical devices. To address this issue, the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Eval­uation of Alternative Toxicological Methods and the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd. convened a workshop at the National Institutes of Health on September 18-19, 2018. Participants included representatives from MAT testing laboratories, medical device manufacturers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radio­logic Health (CDRH), the U.S. Pharmacopeia, the International Organization for Standardization, and experts in the development of MAT protocols. Discussions covered industry experiences with the MAT, remaining challenges, and how CDRH’s Medical Device Development Tools (MDDT) Program, which qualifies tools for use in evaluating medical devices to streamline device development and regulatory evaluation, could be a pathway to qualify the use of MAT in place of the rabbit pyrogen test and the limulus amebocyte lysate test for medical device testing. Workshop outcomes and fol­low-up activities are discussed.

Training Decay Selection for Usability Validation

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-83
Author(s):  
Shannon E. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Validation Studies ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Medical Device Manufacturers ◽  
Selection For ◽  
The Moment ◽  
High Level ◽  
First Time ◽  
Validation Testing

When conducting usability validation testing, representative users must use the device in the expected conditions of use in the field. There is usually a period of time—days or weeks—between the point in time a user is trained, and the moment they use the device for the first time. For this reason, the FDA acknowledges the need for “training decay” as part of usability validation testing, but manufacturers face challenges simulating real-time decays. In response to challenges associated with lags of days or weeks between training and usability validation testing, medical device manufacturers typically simulate shortened training decay periods. This paper discusses the theory behind the shapes of various training decay curves and the variables that drive differences between training decay curves. The author proposes to use a task-based approach for defining training decay curves in usability validation studies and sets out generalized training decay curves at a high level. Future research could reveal detailed and generalizable training decay curves. Identifying generalizable training decay curves could standardize the usability testing required for medical devices, and ultimately improve use error identification while avoiding an undue toll on manufacturer resources.

scholarly journals Chain Reaction

2018 ◽  
Vol 140 (10) ◽  
pp. 30-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan S. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Rolling Stock ◽  
Industrial Equipment ◽  
Special Report ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
The U.S

For 30 years, additive manufacturing has made all sorts of promises. Yet machines remained slow, materials expensive, and printers too inconsistent for critical parts. And additive was costly. Today, however, the technology is turning that past on its head. While additive manufacturing is usually the most expensive way to make any part, it makes economic sense for supply chains. Which is why manufacturers of everything from aircraft and rolling stock to appliances, industrial equipment, and medical devices are looking at 3-D supply chain solutions—as are the U.S. Marines and UPS. This special report looks at how additive manufacturing is disrupting business models and transforming supply chains.

A Platform and Multi-sided Market for Translational, Software-defined Medical Research in the Operation Room: OP 4.1 (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Görtz ◽  
Michael Byczkowski ◽  
Mathias Rath ◽  
Viktoria Schütz ◽  
Philipp Reimold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Heterogeneous Data ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Successful Development ◽  
Software Developers ◽  
Intelligent Support ◽  
Operation Room ◽  
Central Platform ◽  
Medical Device Manufacturers

BACKGROUND While digital and data-based technologies are widespread in various industries in the context of Industry 4.0, the use of smart, connected devices in healthcare is still in its beginnings. Innovative solutions for the medical environment suffer from difficult access to medical device data and high barriers for market entry due to proprietary systems. OBJECTIVE In the proof-of-concept project OP 4.1, we show the business viability of connecting and augmenting medical devices and data through software add-ons by giving companies a technical and commercial platform for the development, implementation, distribution, and billing of innovative software solutions. METHODS The creation of a central platform prototype requires the collaboration of several independent market contenders, amongst them medical users, software developers, medical device manufacturers, and platform providers. A dedicated consortium of clinical and scientific partners as well as industry partners was established. RESULTS We demonstrate the successful development of the prototype of a user-centric, open, and extensible platform for the intelligent support of processes starting with the operation room. By connecting heterogeneous data sources and medical devices from different manufacturers and making them accessible for software developers and medical users, the cloud-based platform OP 4.1 enables the augmentation of medical devices and procedures through software-based solutions. The platform also allows for the demand-oriented billing of applications and medical devices, thus permitting software-based solutions to fast-track their economic development and become commercially successful. CONCLUSIONS The technology and business platform OP 4.1 creates a multi-sided market for the successful development, implementation, distribution, and billing of new software solutions in the operation room and in the healthcare sector in general. Consequently, software-based medical innovation can be translated into clinical routine fast, efficiently, and cost-effectively, optimizing the treatment of patients through smartly assisted procedures.

scholarly journals New medical device regulations: the regulator’s view

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 351-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Melvin ◽  
Marina Torre
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Clinical Investigation ◽  
Pool Data ◽  
Critical Function ◽  
Core Dataset ◽  
Medical Device Manufacturers ◽  
In Vitro Diagnostic ◽  
And Performance

Advances in medical device technology have been dramatic in recent years resulting in both an increased number of medical devices and an increase in the invasiveness and critical function which devices perform. Two new regulations entered into force in Europe in May 2017, the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and the In Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR). These regulations will replace the current directives over the coming years. These regulations, for the first time introduce requirements relating to registries. Medical device manufacturers are required to have systematic methods for examining their devices once available on the market, by systematically gathering, recording and analysing data on safety and performance. Registries can assist public health protection in very practical ways, for example, to help urgently identify patients or devices. Registries can also be powerful tools for collecting and appraising real-world clinical evidence concerning medical devices. Clinical investigations are limited in terms of the sample size and the duration of follow-up which can reasonably be expected. Registries may also be the only available tool to examine rare adverse effects, sub-populations or for time durations which it is not possible or feasible to study in a clinical investigation. By ensuring that a core dataset is collected which can be compared to other registries or trial data, it is possible to pool data to better examine outcomes. There are a range of excellent initiatives which have aimed at ensuring the appropriate regulatory application of registry data. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180061

A Measure of Interdependence: Skill in the Supply Chain

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 326-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Forbes
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Workforce Development ◽  
Automotive Industry ◽  
Lower Tier ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Economic Development Strategies ◽  
High Skill ◽  
Occupational Skill ◽  
The U.S

Economic development strategies often target high-skill and high-wage industries and occupations, but the relationship between skills and wages is uneven and complicated. This study offers a skill-centered, industry-level overview of this uneven landscape. Familiar data sources (input–output tables, industry–occupation matrices, and occupational skill profiles) are used to analyze skill demand across the U.S. automotive cluster. The author shows that the automotive industry depends on the high-level manufacturing skills of intermediate goods suppliers and highlights that the lower wages in these and lower-tier supply sectors may impede skill regeneration and upgrading. Economic and workforce development practitioners can use this analysis to begin or reinvigorate skill-centric conversations with employers in high- and low-skill sectors. Industry leaders can use it to demonstrate the extent to which larger firms rely on the skills of their supply network and to motivate investments in skill development across the supply chain.

scholarly journals Biocompatibility of Medical Devices - A Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (36) ◽  
pp. 3152-3158
Author(s):  
Ramya Shree Gangadhar ◽  
Balamuralidhara V ◽  
Rajeshwari S.R.
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Human Body ◽  
The Body ◽  
Biological Responses ◽  
Medical Device Manufacturers ◽  
Biocompatibility Testing ◽  
Biological Environment ◽  
Key Words Biocompatibility

BACKGROUND Biomaterial is defined as "any substance or combination of medicine, artificial or natural origin, which can be used at any time, in whole or part by a system that controls, adds to, or restores any tissue, organ or function". ISO 10993-1: 2018 standard defines bio compliance law as "the ability of a medical device or tool to perform a selected program with the acceptable response of experts". Incompatible factors cause chemical reactions in patients, with little or no side effects. The body can respond in a sort of way after the installation of medical devices, so testing and improvement is important here. Therefore, testing and improvement in this field are important. Biocompatibility is required for any significant use of components or materials in medical devices. Inconsistent factors create negative biological responses in patients, which may have serious consequences. Biomaterials are substances utilized in medical devices, especially in applications where the device is touched, temporarily embedded, or permanently implanted within the body. Because of the significant impact of biocompatibility, many countries have imposed regulations on medical device manufacturers to meet biocompatibility specifications. Here is a brief explanation about the biocompatibility and incompatibility parameters of medical devices with a human body and its need for biocompatibility of medical devices with the human body. Medical devices have improved doctors' ability to diagnose and treat disease, which has led to significant improvements in health and quality of life. Thus, medical devices are prone to various incompatibility issues and procedures that affect the biological environment must be followed. KEY WORDS Biocompatibility, Material Interactions, Sterilization, Medical devices, Biocompatibility Testing, Incompatibility Factors.

Cybersecurity for Global Medical Device Supply Chain: The U.S. Fda's Role

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keman Huang ◽  
Sophie Herscovici ◽  
Stuart E. Madnick
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
The U.S

Premarket Review of Medical Devices in the United States

2000 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-326
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Perspective ◽  
Premarket Approval ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Medical Device Regulation

AbstractIt has been sixty years since the Congress first authorized FDA to regulate medical devices. During this period, countless studies, reports, and investigations have been targeted at medical devices. The law has been significantly modified several times, and the regulations revised on numerous occasions. As for any other scheme of administration or management, revisions are necessary as demand arises for legislative attention to societal risks, the economy fluctuates, and when businesses expand and globalize. Studying the U.S. system of medical device regulation merely from a contemporary perspective fails to take into account the significance of decades of effort in maintaining the quality and integrity of the system in an ever-changing field of medical device regulation.The three-pronged medical device regulatory system that entails inspection of manufacturing facilities, premarket approval, and postmarket recall and reporting enables the public to benefit from medical devices without the fear of unreasonable risk with their use (Appendix 1). President Clinton proudly pronounced the following in a 1995 speech:Today, Americans don't have to worry about safety or effectiveness when they buy [drugs and medical devices] - from cough syrups to the latest antibiotics or pacemakers. The Food and Drug Administration has made American drugs and medical devices the envy of the world and in demand all over the world. And we are going to stick with the standards we have - the highest in the world.…^218

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document