Introduction:Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are an important, potentially preventable reason to maintain a clean healthcare environment. However, guidelines from Europe and North America do not concur—European guidelines recommend using neutral detergent (followed by chlorine-based disinfection (CBD) if required), whilst North American guidelines recommend using detergent or hospital-grade disinfectant-detergents for routine cleaning or decontamination of noncritical healthcare environmental surfaces. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness on rates of HAIs of: (i) disinfectant-detergents versus detergents; and (ii) the active ingredient of many disinfectant-detergents—quaternary ammonium compounds (QAC)—versus CBD.Methods:A rapid review of systematic reviews was conducted using the following search terms: keywords and controlled vocabulary terms for the concepts of “healthcare environmental surfaces” AND (“QAC-based disinfectants” OR “disinfectant-detergents” OR “decontamination”) AND (“environmental contamination” OR “colonization” OR “HAIs”). The search filters included systematic reviews, guidelines, and technology reports. The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Library; PubMed; and health technology assessment and guideline websites for gray literature. Systematic reviews of studies comparing the effects of disinfectant-detergents with detergent, or comparing QAC with CBD, on rates of HAIs in the healthcare environment were included. Reviews on the cleaning or disinfection of body surfaces or disinfection of invasive medical devices were excluded. Quality assessment was not conducted. Data extraction was performed using a pro forma.Results:The literature search resulted in 356 titles. From ninety-four potentially relevant abstracts, fifty-seven full-texts were evaluated: fifty-one were excluded (eight non-English) and six were included. All review authors cautioned that the evidence was low level, methodologically poor, subject to confounding, and didn't address adverse outcomes. The reviews identified eight relevant primary studies, three of which compared disinfectant-detergents with detergent and found no difference in rates of HAI. Five studies compared QAC with CBD. All five demonstrated that CBD was superior to QAC and reduced Clostridium difficile infection rates in outbreak contexts. Furthermore, QAC may induce sporulation and microbial resistance.Conclusions:Low-level evidence suggested that: there is no advantage in using disinfectant-detergents for routine cleaning of noncritical surfaces; CBD is superior to QAC-based disinfection in reducing clostridial infections; and QAC agents may induce sporulation or microbial resistance.

Aim To determine the level of evidence for innovative high-risk medical devices at market entry. Methods We reviewed all Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI) assessor reports on novel implants or invasive medical devices (n = 18, Class IIb-III) available between 2018 to mid-2019 on applications submitted for inclusion on their reimbursement list. We also conducted a review of the literature on evidence gaps and an analysis of relevant legal and ethical frameworks within the European context. Findings Conformity assessment of medical devices is based on performance, safety, and an acceptable risk-benefit balance. Information submitted for obtaining CE marking is confidential and legally protected, limiting access to clinical evidence. Seven out of the 18 RIZIV-INAMI assessor reports (39%) included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using the novel device, whilst 2 applications (11%) referred to an RCT that used a different device. The population included was inappropriate or unclear for 3 devices (17%). Only half of the applications presented evidence on quality of life or functioning and 2 (11%) presented overall survival data. Four applications (22%) included no data beyond twelve months. The findings from the literature demonstrated similar problems with the study design and the clinical evidence. Discussion and conclusions CE marking does not indicate that a device is effective, only that it complies with the law. The lack of transparency hampers evidence-based decision making. Despite greater emphasis on clinical benefit for the patient, the provisions of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are not yet fully aligned with international ethical standards for clinical research. The MDR fails to address key issues, such as the lack of access to data submitted for CE marking and a failure to require evidence of clinical effectiveness. Indeed, a first report shows no improvement in the clinical evidence for implantable devices generated under the MDR. Thus, patients may continue to be exposed to ineffective or unsafe novel devices. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation plans for Joint Scientific Consultations for specific high-risk devices before companies begin their pivotal clinical investigations. The demanded comparative evidence should facilitate payer decisions. Nevertheless, there is also a need for legislation requiring comparative RCTs assessing patient-relevant outcomes for high-risk devices to ensure implementation, including development and implementation of common specifications for study designs.

IntroductionDue to the iterative nature of medical device innovation and development, a single once-off assessment does not provide all the answers that decision-makers need over the device’s lifetime. Consequently, a lifecycle approach is frequently recommended. However, there is no lifecycle model recognized internationally for conducting such evaluations, nor is there explicit agreement regarding what is meant by, or evaluated over, the lifecycle. The purpose of this review was to identify and explore the range of models/frameworks used for evaluating medical devices across their lifetime – to determine what people mean by ‘the lifecycle’, what is evaluated, how, and why.MethodsA qualitative evidence synthesis of lifecycle models described in the literature from a wide variety of disciplines was performed. Literature searching and selection of models iterated with analysis. Similarities, differences, and patterns were identified, from which themes became apparent, and explanatory theories were developed.ResultsFifty-three models are included in the synthesis. The dimensions of difference include, amongst others, the lifecycle scope, level of application, evaluation timepoints and methods, factors included in the models, and the focus of interest. These are each influenced by the purpose of the lifecycle evaluation, which depends on the perspective and the decision or activity the evaluation is intended to inform. Few models provide a lifecycle approach to evaluating safety or efficacy. Theories explaining the differences are postulated.ConclusionsLifecycle evaluation means different things to different actors, with varied reasons for evaluation and different variables included in the models. Thus, discussions between different actors on lifecycle evaluation may be inadvertently at cross-purposes. Without first defining what is meant by the lifecycle (including the stages or phases of activity it covers) and the variables included in an evaluation, care must be exercised when discussing a lifecycle evaluation approach – to ensure that the meaning (and intended objective) is not lost in translation. Indeed, promoting lifecycle evaluation may result in necessary evidence not being generated early enough, being deferred instead until later.

IntroductionThe Irish Health Service (HSE) Health Technology Assessment Group (HTAG) aims to maximise the impact of its work by collaborating with HSE Procurement, formalised through an evidence-based Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This study aims to inform the MOU.MethodsA sequential mixed-methods study design was used. A rapid review of the literature identified no substantive body of evidence on collaboration between independent national health technology assessment (HTA) and procurement bodies. Personnel involved in HTA or procurement were invited by email to complete a survey, take part in an interview, or both. The quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively. Findings were integrated using a conceptual framework that examined the complementarity of HTA and procurement processes relevant to an MOU.ResultsThirteen surveys were completed (response rate was 13 percent). Eleven interviews (five Ireland, two Canada, three UK, one New Zealand) were conducted between August and November, 2017. No formalised collaboration between independent national HTA and procurement bodies was identified. However in New Zealand, HTA and procurement are an integrated function of the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC). In other jurisdictions, successful ad hoc collaborations occurred where there was a clear need expressed by Procurement for additional evidence required for decision-making, and where HTA personnel tailored their research approaches accordingly. Key themes to successful collaboration were relationships, communication, clear roles, rigorous research and ‘system support’. Good individual relationships and ready access/communication promoted successful outcomes. Successful outcomes included improved clinical practice, and major cost savings. Collaboration may be focussed on: innovative or established devices; specific types of HTA/research products; specific categories/specialties; or specific procurement departments.ConclusionsAll participants considered collaboration to be beneficial but requiring good relationships and ‘system support’. Furthermore, successful collaboration requires clarity regarding the purpose, parties involved, their roles, responsibilities, modes of communication, information to be shared, and the expected outcomes.