No abstract

Background Improving the design of technology relies in part, on the reporting of performance failures in existing devices. Healthcare has low levels of formal reporting of performance and failure of medical equipment. This paper examines methods of reporting in the car industry and healthcare and aims to understand differences and identify opportunities for improvement within healthcare. Methods A literature search was carried out in Pubmed, Medline, Embase, Engineering Village, Scopus. NHS England and MHRA publications and guidelines were also reviewed. Focus was placed on the current system of reporting in both industries, known degree of patient harm, initiating factors, barriers, quality and methods of incident investigation and their validity. The findings were used to compare error reporting system in the two industries. Results Derivation of healthcare incident data from different sources means the full extent of patient harm is not known. For example, in 2012 there were 13,549 and 38,395 incidents reported by MHRA and NRLS (National Reporting and Learning System) respectively leading to uncertainties on the extent of the problem. The car industry emphasises the role of reporting source in ensuring data quality. Utilising some aspects of this approach might benefit healthcare reporting. These include a specific reporting system that stresses the importance of organisational learning in improving safety and recognises the limitations of root cause analysis. Conclusions Learning from reporting systems within the car industry may help the healthcare sector improve its own reporting, aiding healthcare performance.

IntroductionThe current under-reporting of medical device malfunctions, difficulties with the current system and absence of continuous good-quality data has removed the possibility for constant data interrogation and trend recognition to identify evolving issues. This research used end user experiences aiming to understand causes for the lack of data and knowledge on device performance and associated patient risks. This approach was used to identify existing barriers and methods for improvement.MethodsThis is a qualitative study involving semistructured interviews and surveys with clinicians (15 interviews, 39 surveys) and manufacturers (13 interview participants, 5 surveys). Multiple sources of recruiting were used. Data collected were thematically analysed. Interview results were used to design the surveys. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research was used.ResultsMedical device use is based on personal experience rather than evidence which is scarce. Multiple barriers to reporting were identified alongside patient safety and system related aspects. Furthermore, the acceptable level of error was variable as were effects on working practice. Many workarounds have been developed to overcome problems and have become normalised in daily work. These factors were found to have a limiting impact on improvements and learning. Greater system transparency, feedback on submitted reports, a more efficient system of reporting and better communication with manufacturers were reported as some of the required improvements.ConclusionsThis study has identified numerous complex issues affecting reporting of medical device performance and their subsequent effect on patient safety and clinical staff. The focus on incidents has created many limitations to learning and development. The rich experience of end users should be appropriately used to identify system weaknesses and seek improvement methods. Better communication methods should be developed between healthcare and MedTech (Medical Technologies) industry.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to develop the actual pathway to reporting and information transfer in operating theatres in relation to medical technology malfunction/failure. This with the aim of understanding the differences with the pathway published by NHS Improvement and identification of points for improvement.DesignThis is a qualitative study involving stakeholder interviews with doctors, nurses, manufacturers, medical device safety officer and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.SettingData were collected on reporting pathway used in operating theatres. Clinical staff who took part worked in different trusts throughout UK while manufacturers provided devices in UK and EU/USA.ParticipantsSemistructured interviews were completed with 15 clinicians and 13 manufacturers. Surveys were completed by 38 clinicians and 5 manufacturers. Recognised methods of pathway development were used. The Lean Six Sigma principles adapted to healthcare were used to develop suggestions for improvement.Main outcome measuresTo identify the differences between the set pathway to reporting and information transfer to what is occurring on a day-to-day basis as reported by staff. Identify points in the pathway where improvements could be applied.ResultsThe developed pathway demonstrated great complexity of the current reporting system for medical devices. It identified numerous areas that give rise to problems and multiple biases in decision making. This highlighted the core issues leading to under-reporting and lack of knowledge on device performance and patient risk. Suggestions for improvement were deduced based on end user requirements and identified problems.ConclusionsThis study has provided a detailed understanding of the key problem areas that exist within the current reporting system for medical devices and technology. The developed pathway sets to address the key problems to improve reporting outcomes. The identification of pathway differences between ‘work as done’ and ‘work as imagined’ can lead to development of quality improvements that could be systematically applied.