Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.31354/globalce.v4i3.137
Roberto Ayala
Clinical Engineering professionals have a key role in healthcare institutions during the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 disease, mainly by supporting the front line by allowing the proper and timely access of the medical equipment required to diagnose and treat patients affected. But another one of their roles, probably one not so expected, has been their contributions for the development of emergency use medical devices, especially those for respiratory and oxygen therapy. By using the case of critical care use ventilators, and as presented during an IFMBE-CED webinar on the topic, this paper mentions the role of Clinical Engineers for the rapid response manufacturing of such vital care devices, in three main aspects: development, regulation and education. The results from such efforts have paid off by having safe and efficient support equipment while the shortage from commercial products have been receding, by establishing international guidelines for future innovators to take into consideration and by leaving valuable knowledge in the form of educational and training videos for future generations to consult from.
{"title":"Clinical Engineering Role in the Development of Emergency Use Medical Devices","authors":"Roberto Ayala","doi":"10.31354/globalce.v4i3.137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31354/globalce.v4i3.137","url":null,"abstract":"Clinical Engineering professionals have a key role in healthcare institutions during the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 disease, mainly by supporting the front line by allowing the proper and timely access of the medical equipment required to diagnose and treat patients affected. But another one of their roles, probably one not so expected, has been their contributions for the development of emergency use medical devices, especially those for respiratory and oxygen therapy. By using the case of critical care use ventilators, and as presented during an IFMBE-CED webinar on the topic, this paper mentions the role of Clinical Engineers for the rapid response manufacturing of such vital care devices, in three main aspects: development, regulation and education. The results from such efforts have paid off by having safe and efficient support equipment while the shortage from commercial products have been receding, by establishing international guidelines for future innovators to take into consideration and by leaving valuable knowledge in the form of educational and training videos for future generations to consult from.","PeriodicalId":318587,"journal":{"name":"Global Clinical Engineering Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121705012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.31354/globalce.v4i3.134
Jinjiang Jin
Objective: To discuss and analyze the common causes of dental unit failures and summarize maintenance experiences. Methods: The failures were studied through retrospective analysis in our dental clinic from January 2019 to December 2019. Causes for four common failures were analyzed deeply, and the corresponding improvement solution was implemented. Results: These solutions reduced the failure rate for dental units and improved understanding of the importance of using and maintaining the equipment correctly.Conclusion: Analysing and improving proper maintenance can save costs for the hospital and effectively enhance the management level of medical equipment maintenance.
{"title":"Analysis and Solution of Dental Unit Failure","authors":"Jinjiang Jin","doi":"10.31354/globalce.v4i3.134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31354/globalce.v4i3.134","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To discuss and analyze the common causes of dental unit failures and summarize maintenance experiences. Methods: The failures were studied through retrospective analysis in our dental clinic from January 2019 to December 2019. Causes for four common failures were analyzed deeply, and the corresponding improvement solution was implemented. Results: These solutions reduced the failure rate for dental units and improved understanding of the importance of using and maintaining the equipment correctly.Conclusion: Analysing and improving proper maintenance can save costs for the hospital and effectively enhance the management level of medical equipment maintenance.","PeriodicalId":318587,"journal":{"name":"Global Clinical Engineering Journal","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124395102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.31354/GLOBALCE.V4I3.127
R. Ssekitoleko, B. N. Arinda, Solomon Oshabahebwa, L. K. Namuli, Julius Mugaga, C. Namayega, E. Opolot, Jackline Baluka, C. Ibingira, I. Munabi, M. Joloba
Backgrounds and Objective: Advancements in technology have led to great strides in research and innovation that have improved healthcare provision around the world. However, the majority of the technology available is underutilized in Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, the ever-increasing sophistication and cost of medical equipment means that access and proper use is limited in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is, however, a general paucity of well-documented evidence for the utilization of medical equipment in LMICs. Therefore, this study evaluates the current availability and utilization of medical equipment in tertiary hospitals and research facilities in Uganda and provides baseline information to clinical/biomedical engineers, innovators, managers, and policymakers.Material and Methods: The study evaluated the equipment currently used in 9 purposively selected public tertiary hospitals and 5 research laboratories representing different regions of Uganda. Data were collected by personnel specialized in biomedical engineering utilizing a mixed-method approach that involved inventory taking and surveys directed to the health workers in the designated health facilities. Results: The hospitals contributed 1995 (85%) pieces of medical equipment while the research laboratories contributed 343 (15%) pieces amounting to 2338 pieces of equipment involved in the study. On average, 34% of the medical equipment in the health facilities was faulty, and 85.6% lacked manuals.Discussion and conclusion: Although innovative solutions and donated equipment address the immediate and long-term goals of resource-constrained settings, our study demonstrated several issues around existing medical devices, and these need immediate attention.
{"title":"Status of Medical Devices and their Utilization in 9 Tertiary Hospitals and 5 Research institutions in Uganda","authors":"R. Ssekitoleko, B. N. Arinda, Solomon Oshabahebwa, L. K. Namuli, Julius Mugaga, C. Namayega, E. Opolot, Jackline Baluka, C. Ibingira, I. Munabi, M. Joloba","doi":"10.31354/GLOBALCE.V4I3.127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31354/GLOBALCE.V4I3.127","url":null,"abstract":"Backgrounds and Objective: Advancements in technology have led to great strides in research and innovation that have improved healthcare provision around the world. However, the majority of the technology available is underutilized in Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, the ever-increasing sophistication and cost of medical equipment means that access and proper use is limited in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is, however, a general paucity of well-documented evidence for the utilization of medical equipment in LMICs. Therefore, this study evaluates the current availability and utilization of medical equipment in tertiary hospitals and research facilities in Uganda and provides baseline information to clinical/biomedical engineers, innovators, managers, and policymakers.Material and Methods: The study evaluated the equipment currently used in 9 purposively selected public tertiary hospitals and 5 research laboratories representing different regions of Uganda. Data were collected by personnel specialized in biomedical engineering utilizing a mixed-method approach that involved inventory taking and surveys directed to the health workers in the designated health facilities. Results: The hospitals contributed 1995 (85%) pieces of medical equipment while the research laboratories contributed 343 (15%) pieces amounting to 2338 pieces of equipment involved in the study. On average, 34% of the medical equipment in the health facilities was faulty, and 85.6% lacked manuals.Discussion and conclusion: Although innovative solutions and donated equipment address the immediate and long-term goals of resource-constrained settings, our study demonstrated several issues around existing medical devices, and these need immediate attention.","PeriodicalId":318587,"journal":{"name":"Global Clinical Engineering Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129084673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.31354/globalce.v4i3.142
J. Nkurunziza, J. C. Udahemuka, Jean Baptise Dusenge, Francine Umutesi
Healthy population is regarded as the most valuable asset of any country. Unfortunately, the health challenges that hinder mankind's wellbeing are enormously increasing. Examples include but are not limited to: the diversity of emerging diseases afflicting the global population, the projected demographic growth of elderly people who need consistent monitoring, the deficiency in medical staff, the lower density of physicians, and the challenging geographical location of the population from healthcare providers. The mitigation of such health challenges calls for novel technologies to improve patient outcomes. In this article, seven emerging technologies, namely: Wearable Devices and Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain Technology or Distributed Ledger Technology, Robotics Technology, Telehealth and Telemedicine, Big Data Technology and Nanomedicine have been highlighted. For each discussed technology, its historical background, development drivers, market status and trends, significance to healthcare, key player companies, and associated challenges have been presented. The information contained in this paper was collected from different journal articles, websites, reports, conference proceedings, and books. It was observed that though the technologies discussed in this article show growth at different rates, healthcare technology development and implementation are very promising in revolutionizing the health sector and improving the health of the population. Therefore, healthcare providers and countries are recommended to put in place Healthcare Technology Assessment Programs to help them collect data regarding the technology efficacy, relevance, safety, outcomes, and alternative technologies towards better planning for healthcare services improvement.
{"title":"Overview of Trending Medical Technologies","authors":"J. Nkurunziza, J. C. Udahemuka, Jean Baptise Dusenge, Francine Umutesi","doi":"10.31354/globalce.v4i3.142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31354/globalce.v4i3.142","url":null,"abstract":"Healthy population is regarded as the most valuable asset of any country. Unfortunately, the health challenges that hinder mankind's wellbeing are enormously increasing. Examples include but are not limited to: the diversity of emerging diseases afflicting the global population, the projected demographic growth of elderly people who need consistent monitoring, the deficiency in medical staff, the lower density of physicians, and the challenging geographical location of the population from healthcare providers. The mitigation of such health challenges calls for novel technologies to improve patient outcomes. In this article, seven emerging technologies, namely: Wearable Devices and Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain Technology or Distributed Ledger Technology, Robotics Technology, Telehealth and Telemedicine, Big Data Technology and Nanomedicine have been highlighted. For each discussed technology, its historical background, development drivers, market status and trends, significance to healthcare, key player companies, and associated challenges have been presented. The information contained in this paper was collected from different journal articles, websites, reports, conference proceedings, and books. It was observed that though the technologies discussed in this article show growth at different rates, healthcare technology development and implementation are very promising in revolutionizing the health sector and improving the health of the population. Therefore, healthcare providers and countries are recommended to put in place Healthcare Technology Assessment Programs to help them collect data regarding the technology efficacy, relevance, safety, outcomes, and alternative technologies towards better planning for healthcare services improvement.","PeriodicalId":318587,"journal":{"name":"Global Clinical Engineering Journal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132373548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.31354/globalce.v3i2.116
D. Yadin
Sterile processing errors in medical and dental offices are ranked the third highest hazard according to the annual ECRI ‘Top 10 Health Technology Hazards’ 2020 report. Other experts have raised similar concerns with sterilisation processes. For example, the WHO and the Clinical Engineering Division of International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE) have partnered to provide a series of webinars with international experts exchanging knowledge on COVID-19 related critical topics. A recent webinar addressed the critical challenge of decontamination and disinfection of COVID-19 medical equipment in low-income and middle-income countries. During the webinar, participants asked about methodologies to assess whether the transmission of infection is borne by technological tools used to fight the disease. How can critical lifesaving breathing equipment be safely and quickly sterilised and moved from one patient to the next? The WHO/IFMBE webinar2 stated that ‘engineers and infection control professionals seem to be working in different silos’. Such silos must be dismantled because medical technology is indispensable in the provisioning of healthcare services. Disinfection and sterilisation of medical equipment are key concerns for healthcare organisations, and they require serious consideration of sociotechnical system interactions. The annual ‘top 10 Health Technology Hazards report’ is based on retrospective studies, yet management of COVID-19 safety requires capacity to process real- time data and the input of experts to predict where risks may occur and how to deploy plans to maintain a safe healthcare environment.
{"title":"Unravelling the magic of latent safety threats","authors":"D. Yadin","doi":"10.31354/globalce.v3i2.116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31354/globalce.v3i2.116","url":null,"abstract":"Sterile processing errors in medical and dental offices are ranked the third highest hazard according to the annual ECRI ‘Top 10 Health Technology Hazards’ 2020 report. Other experts have raised similar concerns with sterilisation processes. For example, the WHO and the Clinical Engineering Division of International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE) have partnered to provide a series of webinars with international experts exchanging knowledge on COVID-19 related critical topics. A recent webinar addressed the critical challenge of decontamination and disinfection of COVID-19 medical equipment in low-income and middle-income countries. During the webinar, participants asked about methodologies to assess whether the transmission of infection is borne by technological tools used to fight the disease. How can critical lifesaving breathing equipment be safely and quickly sterilised and moved from one patient to the next? The WHO/IFMBE webinar2 stated that ‘engineers and infection control professionals seem to be working in different silos’. Such silos must be dismantled because medical technology is indispensable in the provisioning of healthcare services. Disinfection and sterilisation of medical equipment are key concerns for healthcare organisations, and they require serious consideration of sociotechnical system interactions. The annual ‘top 10 Health Technology Hazards report’ is based on retrospective studies, yet management of COVID-19 safety requires capacity to process real- time data and the input of experts to predict where risks may occur and how to deploy plans to maintain a safe healthcare environment.","PeriodicalId":318587,"journal":{"name":"Global Clinical Engineering Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116200980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-30DOI: 10.31354/globalce.v3i1.98
Fred W. Hosea
GLOBAL DISASTER UNPREPAREDNESS - The global COVID-19 crisis of 2020 has thrown a disturbing spotlight on the many ways in which healthcare systems, governments, medical industries, markets, and healthcare professions have been dangerously fragmented, unprepared, under-resourced, tragically slow and uncoordinated in responding to the most disruptive medical disaster of our times. Despite numerous threat-analysis studies, detailed pandemic scenarios and simulations by state and Federal agencies, despite billions of dollars spent on post-9/11 international disaster preparedness, and repeated top-levels warnings, the world’s governments, markets and healthcare systems have failed to prepare and prevent a health disaster from exploding into a multi-dimensional catastrophe. The fragmentation of plans and competencies across sectors, complicated by political decision-making, clearly demand mission-critical re-organization among the institutional players, with more coordinated, integrated, and systems-oriented professional approaches worldwide, and active cultivation of public health intelligence. For the reasons that follow, Clinical and Biomedical Engineers are among the best-suited health professionals to assume an expanded and comprehensive leadership role in this urgently needed transformation.
{"title":"Emerging Horizons of Clinical Engineering in Disaster Preparedness and Management","authors":"Fred W. Hosea","doi":"10.31354/globalce.v3i1.98","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31354/globalce.v3i1.98","url":null,"abstract":"GLOBAL DISASTER UNPREPAREDNESS - The global COVID-19 crisis of 2020 has thrown a disturbing spotlight on the many ways in which healthcare systems, governments, medical industries, markets, and healthcare professions have been dangerously fragmented, unprepared, under-resourced, tragically slow and uncoordinated in responding to the most disruptive medical disaster of our times. Despite numerous threat-analysis studies, detailed pandemic scenarios and simulations by state and Federal agencies, despite billions of dollars spent on post-9/11 international disaster preparedness, and repeated top-levels warnings, the world’s governments, markets and healthcare systems have failed to prepare and prevent a health disaster from exploding into a multi-dimensional catastrophe. \u0000The fragmentation of plans and competencies across sectors, complicated by political decision-making, clearly demand mission-critical re-organization among the institutional players, with more coordinated, integrated, and systems-oriented professional approaches worldwide, and active cultivation of public health intelligence. For the reasons that follow, Clinical and Biomedical Engineers are among the best-suited health professionals to assume an expanded and comprehensive leadership role in this urgently needed transformation.","PeriodicalId":318587,"journal":{"name":"Global Clinical Engineering Journal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126157196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-29DOI: 10.31354/GLOBALCE.V2I3.86
Immacolata De Rosa, A. Pepino, G. Giaconia, Mario Guarino
Background and Objective. The deliberation n.7301 of 31/12/2001 provides for the inclusion of a call system with acoustic and luminous signalling within the minimum equipment of the recovery ward. However, traditional call systems are inefficient since they are based on the following incorrect assumptions: patients and staff are unmoving, information sources are static and assistance is unidirectional. Taking care of a patient involves different figures who should be dynamic and should be able to exchange information. Furthermore, the high number of clinical calls and alarms might be an issue, because on one hand they are essential to fulfil patients’ needs, but on the other hand they could cause stress and additional workload on medical staff. Indeed, they sometimes ignore some calls or waste a lot of time on non-urgent requests. In addition, the identification of an alarm and the prompt intervention seems to be more difficult during travelling. An ideal alarm system should have 100% sensitivity and specificity. Nevertheless, the alarms are designed to be extremely sensitive, at the expense of specificity. The alarm fatigue, that is the work overload due to an excessive alarms number exposition, is a critical problem in terms of safety in the current clinical practice because it involves desensitization and alarm loss, causing sometimes even the patient's death. Material and Methods. Therefore, appropriate approaches to notifications should be evaluated, including the effectiveness of mobile wireless technologies: linking patients, staff, data, services and medical devices simplifies communications and workflows. Several issues related to the communication among staff members, between patient and caregiver and to the alarms and vital parameters distribution in care-intensive environments have been analysed, focusing on the clinical effectiveness analysis of an innovative technology to support the Emergency Department of the Azienda Ospedaliera dei Colli activities. Afterwards, we have created a simulation model with Simul8, so that a digital twin reproduces direct and indirect activities in two cases: with and without (What If and As Is model) the aid of the technology. Results and conclusions. The model provides a set of Key Performance Indicators (number of performing activities, average alarm resolution time, waiting time) on which the compensatory aggregation method is applied to elaborate a single final score in both cases. This score is 52,5 in the As Is Model and 80 in the What If model. So, the clinical effectiveness has been demonstrated.
{"title":"Bedside communication and management of vital parameters and alarms in care-intensive environments: Simulation model development for the clinical effectiveness analysis of an innovative technology","authors":"Immacolata De Rosa, A. Pepino, G. Giaconia, Mario Guarino","doi":"10.31354/GLOBALCE.V2I3.86","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31354/GLOBALCE.V2I3.86","url":null,"abstract":"Background and Objective. The deliberation n.7301 of 31/12/2001 provides for the inclusion of a call system with acoustic and luminous signalling within the minimum equipment of the recovery ward. However, traditional call systems are inefficient since they are based on the following incorrect assumptions: patients and staff are unmoving, information sources are static and assistance is unidirectional. Taking care of a patient involves different figures who should be dynamic and should be able to exchange information. \u0000Furthermore, the high number of clinical calls and alarms might be an issue, because on one hand they are essential to fulfil patients’ needs, but on the other hand they could cause stress and additional workload on medical staff. Indeed, they sometimes ignore some calls or waste a lot of time on non-urgent requests. In addition, the identification of an alarm and the prompt intervention seems to be more difficult during travelling. \u0000An ideal alarm system should have 100% sensitivity and specificity. Nevertheless, the alarms are designed to be extremely sensitive, at the expense of specificity. \u0000The alarm fatigue, that is the work overload due to an excessive alarms number exposition, is a critical problem in terms of safety in the current clinical practice because it involves desensitization and alarm loss, causing sometimes even the patient's death. \u0000Material and Methods. Therefore, appropriate approaches to notifications should be evaluated, including the effectiveness of mobile wireless technologies: linking patients, staff, data, services and medical devices simplifies communications and workflows. \u0000Several issues related to the communication among staff members, between patient and caregiver and to the alarms and vital parameters distribution in care-intensive environments have been analysed, focusing on the clinical effectiveness analysis of an innovative technology to support the Emergency Department of the Azienda Ospedaliera dei Colli activities. \u0000Afterwards, we have created a simulation model with Simul8, so that a digital twin reproduces direct and indirect activities in two cases: with and without (What If and As Is model) the aid of the technology. \u0000Results and conclusions. The model provides a set of Key Performance Indicators (number of performing activities, average alarm resolution time, waiting time) on which the compensatory aggregation method is applied to elaborate a single final score in both cases. This score is 52,5 in the As Is Model and 80 in the What If model. So, the clinical effectiveness has been demonstrated.","PeriodicalId":318587,"journal":{"name":"Global Clinical Engineering Journal","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133437224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-19DOI: 10.31354/GLOBALCE.V2I3.84
J. Sharma, J. Bunders, T. Zuiderent-Jerak, B. Regeer
Health Technology Assessment focuses on equal appraisal of health technologies introduced into the market. This has made regulators and the governance of innovation reactive and dependent on the initiatives innovators take for technology development, thus making it supply driven. The policy makers’ role has become one of appraising technologies that are already developed rather than guiding the development agenda. This severely limits the possibility to ensure that health technologies sufficiently address major issues such as burden of disease, trade deficit and health inequalities. It places governments outside of the actor arena that co-shapes technologies in the early stages, restricting the involvement to facilitating scale up or not. It makes it hard to achieve health technology governance practices that maximally contribute to ensure technological developments that actually address public concerns. What is the potential of frameworks for changing this dynamics and how can evidence shape technology development agenda’s without falling into the traps of regulator lock-in or social engineering? The methodology presented in this study takes first but important steps towards an evidence based framework for priority setting to guide innovations, particularly in health and social sectors
{"title":"A Model for Priority Setting in Health Technology Innovation Policy","authors":"J. Sharma, J. Bunders, T. Zuiderent-Jerak, B. Regeer","doi":"10.31354/GLOBALCE.V2I3.84","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31354/GLOBALCE.V2I3.84","url":null,"abstract":"Health Technology Assessment focuses on equal appraisal of health technologies introduced into the market. This has made regulators and the governance of innovation reactive and dependent on the initiatives innovators take for technology development, thus making it supply driven. The policy makers’ role has become one of appraising technologies that are already developed rather than guiding the development agenda. This severely limits the possibility to ensure that health technologies sufficiently address major issues such as burden of disease, trade deficit and health inequalities. It places governments outside of the actor arena that co-shapes technologies in the early stages, restricting the involvement to facilitating scale up or not. It makes it hard to achieve health technology governance practices that maximally contribute to ensure technological developments that actually address public concerns. What is the potential of frameworks for changing this dynamics and how can evidence shape technology development agenda’s without falling into the traps of regulator lock-in or social engineering? The methodology presented in this study takes first but important steps towards an evidence based framework for priority setting to guide innovations, particularly in health and social sectors","PeriodicalId":318587,"journal":{"name":"Global Clinical Engineering Journal","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128332916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：