Abstract
Abstract
Background
Medical devices provide a great number of medical treatments and have an important role in patients’ healthcare; however, there are certain risks, sometimes even serious incidents, associated with their usage. To ensure that benefits of medical device usage always outweigh associated risks, it is necessary to closely monitor known risks post-market and detect new ones as early as possible. Among others, valuable instrument of post-market surveillance is manufacturer incident report. Yet to accomplish its intended use, such report must be sufficiently populated and supplied with correct information. Aim of this paper is to assess the quality of manufacturer’s incident reports received in HALMED since 2012 to May 2021.
Methods
The study included 578 initial reports and 566 final reports that were scored according to the evaluating system we designed and categorized as Excellent, Good, Medium, Qualified and Unqualified. For each report medical device risk class was also extracted to calculate the frequency of report occurrence per risk class and time that passed between the initial and final report. Difference in quality of the reports between manufacturers based on EU countries and countries outside the EU was determined by Mann Whitney U test.
Results
Most of initial and final reports fall into two highest quality category level, which means that a sufficient amount of reports are of good/excellent quality and quality of reports prevails. However, the study’s results indicate the need for higher scores, especially in critical fields of the form.
Conclusions
Data obtained from the manufacturer can be scarce and insufficient, causing negative influence on Competent Authority’s investigation procedure. Another issue we recognized is extensive underreporting in Croatia, which can seriously undermine the established system.
Reference27 articles.
1. Kramer DB, Tan YT, Sato C, Kesselheim AS. Ensuring medical device effectiveness and safety: a cross-national comparison of approaches to regulation. Food Drug Law J. 2014;69(1):1–23.
2. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. MEDDEV 2 12–1 rev. 8 Vigilance. European Commission. 2013;(July 2013):1–64. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/32305/attachments/1/translations. Accessed 14 Oct 2021.
3. Zippel C, Bohnet-Joschko S. Post market surveillance in the german medical device sector—current state and future perspectives. Health Policy. 2017;121(8):880–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.06.005.
4. European Parliament and of the Council. Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. Official Journal of the European Communities. (October 1998):1–42. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A31998L0079. Accessed 14 Oct 2021.
5. European Parliament and of the Council . Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices. Official Journal of the European Communities. (September 2000):1–15. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:31990L0385. Accessed 14 Oct 2021.