Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28768712›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2018

Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices.

Anna R Gagliardi, Ariel Ducey, Pascale Lehoux, Thomas Turgeon, Sue Ross, Patricia Trbovich, Anthony Easty, Chaim Bell, David Urbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Impact of Design on Medical Device Safety.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anna R GagliardiToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5721-809X
Ariel DuceyDepartment of Sociology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Pascale LehouxDépartement d'administration de la santé, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Thomas TurgeonConcordia Hip and Knee Institute, Concordia Hospital, Winnipeg, Canada.
Sue RossWomen & Children's Health Research Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Patricia TrbovichInstitute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Anthony EastyInstitute of Biomaterials & Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Chaim BellDivision of General Internal Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada.
David UrbachToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostmarket surveillance of medical devices is reliant on physician reporting of adverse medical device events (AMDEs). Little is known about factors that influence whether and how physicians report AMDEs, an essential step in developing behaviour change interventions. This study explored factors that influence AMDE reporting.

methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with physicians who differed by specialties that implant cardiovascular and orthopaedic devices prone to AMDEs, geography and years in practice. Participants were asked if and how they reported AMDEs, and the influencing factors. Themes were identified inductively using constant comparative technique, and reviewed and discussed by the research team on four occasions.

resultsTwenty-two physicians of varying specialty, region, organisation and career stage perceived AMDE reporting as unnecessary, not possible or futile due to multiple factors. Physicians viewed AMDEs as an expected part of practice that they could manage by switching to different devices or developing work-around strategies for problematic devices. Physician beliefs and behaviour were reinforced by limited healthcare system capacity and industry responsiveness. The healthcare system lacked processes and infrastructure to detect, capture, share and act on information about AMDEs, and constrained device choice through purchasing contracts. The device industry did not respond to reports of AMDEs from physicians or improve their products based on such reports. As a result, participants said they used devices that were less than ideal for a given patient, leading to suboptimal patient outcomes.

conclusionsThere may be little point in solely educating or incentivising individual physicians to report AMDEs unless environmental conditions are conducive to doing so. Future research should explore policies that govern AMDEs and investigate how to design and implement postmarket surveillance systems.

Indexed as

Equipment and SuppliesEquipment FailureAttitude of Health PersonnelCanadaCardiologyDocumentationHumansInterviews as TopicOrthopedicsPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Product Surveillance, PostmarketingQualitative ResearchEquipment and suppliesinfluencing factorsmedical devicesphysicians’ practice patternsqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID28768712
PMCPMC5867432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.