Search

Introduction: Harms from medical devices are important, but have been much less well studied than adverse drug reactions. Information provided to device users is of variable quality.Objective: Our aim was to define "medical device fault" and "adverse effect of a medical device"; to establish whether medical device faults arise in design, manufacture, or use; and to consider ways of mitigating the adverse effects of medical devices.Methods: We analysed 100 consecutive faults reported by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and 50 faults reported by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and classified faults according to the point at which they occurred.Results: Nearly 70% of reported faults related to devices that entered the body. Over 70% arose at the design stage, a quarter of the faults were associated with manufacture, and less than 5% were primarily caused by faulty use.Conclusion: We defined a medical device fault as an unintended failure in the design, manufacture, or use of a medical device that leads to, or has the potential to lead to, harm to the patient, and an adverse effect of a medical device as an unintended and appreciably harmful effect, caused by a medical device, which demonstrates a hazard of the device and may warrant preventive measures, or a change in the mode of use, or withdrawal of the device. Most faults that generate warnings arise from problems at the design stage, some arise at the manufacturing stage, and a few in usage. Careful assessment of the design of safety-critical devices in the light of previous problems may help to prevent repetition of errors. It would be helpful if, in addition to user manuals, manufacturers were required to produce Summaries of Device Characteristics (SDCs, "labels") that contained a systematically presented set of information about a product. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We propose the following definition of a medical device: "A contrivance designed and manufactured for use in healthcare, and not solely medicinal or nutritional." Current regulatory classifications of medical devices are complex and designed primarily for regulators. We propose a simpler classification, based on (1) the site of application of the device, (2) the time scale of its use, and (3) whether it has an external power source. The regulation of medical devices is less well developed than the regulation of medicinal products, which it could follow more closely. In particular, devices that incorporate medicines should be required to meet the same regulatory standards as medicinal products. This would remove the anomaly that some delivery systems that incorporate medicines are classified as devices while other similar systems that deliver the same medicines are classified as medicinal products. Some improvements might also result from more widespread use of registries, such as those used for prosthetic joint replacements. Registries would allow both a prospective examination of the performance of high-risk devices and a retrospective analysis when signals from other sources of information suggest problems. Those who apply for a marketing authorization for a new device should have to assure regulators of its quality of manufacture, safety, and efficacy before licensing. Even the most straightforward device should be shown to be useable in practice. Trials on patients, or at least simulations of use in the real world, should be practicable for most devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Coroners inquire into sudden, unexpected, or unnatural deaths. We have previously established 99 cases (100 deaths) in England and Wales in which medicines or part of the medication process or both were mentioned in coroners' 'Regulation 28 Reports to Prevent Future Deaths' (coroners' reports).Objective: We wished to see what responses were made by National Health Service (NHS) organizations and others to these 99 coroners' reports.Methods: Where possible, we identified the party or parties to whom these reports were addressed (names were occasionally redacted). We then sought responses, either from the UK judiciary website or by making requests to the addressee directly or, for NHS and government entities, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Responses were analysed by theme to indicate the steps taken to prevent future deaths.Results: We were able to analyse one or more responses to 69/99 cases from 106 organizations. We analysed 201 separate actions proposed or taken to address the 160 concerns expressed by coroners. Staff education or training was the most common form of action taken (44/201). Some organisations made changes in process (24/201) or policy (17/201), and some felt existing policies were sufficient to address some concerns (22/201).Conclusions: Coroners' concerns are often of national importance but are not currently shared nationally. Only a minority of responses to coroners' reports concerning medicines are in the public domain. Processes for auditing responses and assessing their effectiveness are opaque. Few of the responses appear to provide robust and generally applicable ways to prevent future deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Since legislation in 2009, coroners in England and Wales must make reports in cases where they believe it is possible to prevent future deaths. We categorised the reports and examined whether they could reveal preventable medication errors or novel adverse drug reactions.Methods: We examined 500 coroners' reports by pre-defined criteria to identify those in which medicines played a part, and to collect information on coroners' concerns.Results: We identified 99 reports (100 deaths) in which medicines or a part of the medication process or both were mentioned. Reports mentioned anticoagulants (22 reports), opioids (17), antidepressants (17), drugs of abuse excluding opioids (12 deaths) and other drugs. The most important concerns related to adverse reactions to prescribed medicines (22), omission of necessary treatment (21), failure to monitor treatment (17) and poor systems (17). These were related to defects in education or training, lack of clear guidelines or protocols and failure to implement existing guidelines, among other reasons. Most reports went either to NHS Hospital Trusts or to local trusts. The responses of addressees were rarely published. We identified four safety warnings from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency that were based on coroners' warnings.Conclusion: Coroners' reports to prevent future deaths provide some information on medication errors and adverse reactions. They rarely identify new hazards. At present they are often addressed to local bodies, but this could mean that wider lessons are lost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]