The application study of harmonization code in medical device adverse event reporting.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11885-1
Soo Jeong Choi, Sooin Choi, Songhyeon Park, Ki Chang Nam, Hye Jung Jang, Jin Kuk Kim, You Kyoung Lee, Hiroshi Ishikawa, Eric Woo
{"title":"The application study of harmonization code in medical device adverse event reporting.","authors":"Soo Jeong Choi, Sooin Choi, Songhyeon Park, Ki Chang Nam, Hye Jung Jang, Jin Kuk Kim, You Kyoung Lee, Hiroshi Ishikawa, Eric Woo","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11885-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The reporting of adverse events in medical devices (MD) is a starting point of post-market surveillance and the most common source of initial safety signals. Because MD adverse events (AE) occur globally and involve high-profile international public health crises, international regulators implanted standard codes for MDAE reporting. This study aimed to assess the application of MDAE terminology and codes by providing examples of virtual events.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey was conducted among participants of the MD Training Program for Regulatory Authorities which provide International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) adverse event terminology and codes, and six virtual MDAE cases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 29 of the 72 participants were regulators. In all cases, most participants selected the broad (level 1) codes rather than the detailed (level 2 or level 3) codes. While responders selected a variety of codes for all annexes in case 1, over 50% of responders selected the intended codes in case 6. The codes for cause investigation were chosen more frequently than other annexes for device problem, components, and health effect. No differences were observed in code selection amongst different stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified the diversification in terminology and code selection for reporting MDAEs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"1402"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11562707/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11885-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The reporting of adverse events in medical devices (MD) is a starting point of post-market surveillance and the most common source of initial safety signals. Because MD adverse events (AE) occur globally and involve high-profile international public health crises, international regulators implanted standard codes for MDAE reporting. This study aimed to assess the application of MDAE terminology and codes by providing examples of virtual events.

Methods: An online survey was conducted among participants of the MD Training Program for Regulatory Authorities which provide International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) adverse event terminology and codes, and six virtual MDAE cases.

Results: All 29 of the 72 participants were regulators. In all cases, most participants selected the broad (level 1) codes rather than the detailed (level 2 or level 3) codes. While responders selected a variety of codes for all annexes in case 1, over 50% of responders selected the intended codes in case 6. The codes for cause investigation were chosen more frequently than other annexes for device problem, components, and health effect. No differences were observed in code selection amongst different stakeholders.

Conclusions: We identified the diversification in terminology and code selection for reporting MDAEs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
统一代码在医疗器械不良事件报告中的应用研究。
背景:医疗器械(MD)不良事件报告是上市后监督的起点,也是最初安全信号的最常见来源。由于医疗器械不良事件(AE)在全球范围内发生,并涉及备受瞩目的国际公共卫生危机,因此国际监管机构为 MDAE 报告植入了标准代码。本研究旨在通过提供虚拟事件实例,评估 MDAE 术语和代码的应用情况:方法:对监管机构 MD 培训项目的参与者进行在线调查,调查提供了国际医疗器械监管机构论坛 (IMDRF) 的不良事件术语和代码以及六个虚拟 MDAE 案例:结果:72 位参与者中有 29 位都是监管者。在所有案例中,大多数参与者都选择了宽泛的(1 级)代码,而不是详细的(2 级或 3 级)代码。在案例 1 中,应答者为所有附件选择了各种代码,而在案例 6 中,超过 50% 的应答者选择了预期代码。在设备问题、组件和健康影响方面,原因调查代码的选择频率高于其他附件。不同利益相关者在代码选择上没有差异:我们确定了报告 MDAE 的术语和代码选择的多样性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the experiences of resident doctors in child and adolescent psychiatry with virtual reality-based simulation training: a qualitative study. Distribution and predictors of haemophilia-related costs in the United Kingdom: analysis of the CHESS I and CHESS II burden of illness studies. Negotiating care in organizational borderlands: a grounded theory of inter-organizational collaboration in coordination of care. Equity and efficiency of health resource allocation in Sichuan Province, China. How to assess doctor managers' managerial attitude: results from an e-Delphi process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1