Advancing Patient Safety Surrounding Medical Devices: Barriers, Strategies, and Next Steps in Health System Implementation of Unique Device Identifiers
Natalia A Wilson,James E Tcheng,Jove Graham,Joseph P Drozda
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S364539
2022-06-21
Medical Devices: Evidence and Research
Abstract:Natalia A Wilson, 1 James E Tcheng, 2 Jove Graham, 3 Joseph P Drozda Jr 4 1 College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 2 Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; 3 Center for Pharmacy Innovation and Outcomes, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA; 4 Mercy Research, Mercy, Chesterfield, MO, USA Correspondence: Natalia A Wilson, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA, Email Background: The requirement for medical device manufacturers to label their devices with a unique device identifier (UDI) was formalized by the 2013 US Food and Drug Administration Unique Device Identification System Rule. However, parallel regulatory requirement for US health systems to use UDIs, particularly the electronic documentation of UDIs during patient care is lacking. Despite the lack of regulation, some health systems have implemented and are using UDIs. To assess the current state, we studied representative health system UDI implementation experiences, including barriers and the strategies to overcome them, and identified next steps to advance UDI adoption. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were performed with health system personnel involved in UDI implementation in their cardiac catheterization labs or operating rooms. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the framework methodology of Ritchie and Spencer. An expert panel evaluated findings and informed barriers, strategies, and next steps. Results: Twenty-four interviews at ten health systems were performed. Identified barriers were internal (lack of organizational support, information technology gaps, clinical resistance) and external (information technology vendor resistance, limitations in manufacturer support, gaps in reference data, lack of an overall UDI system). Identified strategies included relationship building, education, engagement, and communication. Next steps to advance UDI adoption focus on education, research, support, and policy. Conclusions and Implications: Delineation of UDI implementation barriers and strategies provides guidance and support for health systems to adopt the UDI standard and electronically document UDIs during clinical care. Next steps illuminate critical areas for attention to advance UDI adoption and achieve a comprehensive UDI system in health care to strengthen patient care and safety. Keywords: unique device identifier, FDA, implementation barriers, implementation strategies, information technology systems, device manufacturer responsibilities There is currently no requirement for US health systems to use the medical device unique device identifier (UDI) in the processes of patient care. In 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Unique Device Identification System Rule regulated the critical first step towards UDI adoption, specifying requirements for manufacturer labeling of medical devices with a UDI. 1 A UDI includes a device identifier (DI) that identifies manufacturer and model of the device and a production identifier (PI) that identifies lot number, serial number, expiration data, and/or date of manufacture, as available for a device. UDIs must be on the label and packaging of a medical device in a format that can be electronically captured, such as a barcode, as well as human readable. 1,2 As a result of this rule, the vast majority of moderate- and high-risk devices and implantable devices are now labelled with a UDI. Lower risk devices increasingly are being labeled with UDIs. 3 The FDA's UDI Rule delineated multiple public health objectives that a UDI system could serve: reduction of medical error, simplification of the integration of device information into health information technology (IT) systems, more rapid identification of devices with adverse events and development of solutions, more efficient recalls, better safety communication, strengthening of patient and provider information on devices implanted in patients, and support of more effective safety surveillance and postmarket studies. 1 However, the FDA does not have the authority to require health systems to electronically document UDIs in the patient care setting. Without this requirement UDIs are not available for broad use to identify, track, report on, study and comparatively evaluate medical devices, and fulfill these important public health objectives. Despite the lack of requirement, some health systems have moved forward on their own to implement UDIs based on their internal projections of return on investment, clinical value, and safety benefits for their patients and health systems. Through internal UDI initiatives they have developed the n -Abstract Truncated-
English Else