Purchasing high-cost medical equipment in hospitals: A systematic review
========================================================================

* Saba Hinrichs-Krapels
* Bor Ditewig
* Harriet Boulding
* Anastasia Chalkidou
* Jamie Erskine
* Farhad Shokraneh

## ABSTRACT

**Objectives** To systematically review academic literature for empirical studies on any processes, procedures, methods or approaches to purchasing high-cost medical equipment within hospitals in high-income countries.

**Design** Systematic review

**Methods** On 13 August 2020, we searched the following from inception: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, EconLit and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I via ProQuest, Embase, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in Process via Ovid SP, Google and Google Scholar, Health Management and Policy Database via Ovid SP, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, International HTA Database, NHS EED via CRD Web, Science Citation Index-Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Emerging Sources Citation Index via Web of Science, Scopus, and Zetoc conference search. Studies were included if they described the approach to purchasing (also known as procurement or acquisition) of high-cost medical devices and/or equipment conducting within hospitals in high-income countries between 2000-2020. Studies were screened, data extracted, and summarised.

**Results** Of 9437 records, 24 were included, based in 12 different countries and covering equipment types ranging from surgical robots to MRI scanners and orthopaedic implants. Study types included descriptions of processes taking place within or across hospitals (n=14), out of which three reported cost savings; empirical studies in which hospital records or participant data were analysed (n=8), and evaluations or pilots of proposed purchasing processes (n=2). Studies mainly highlight the importance of multidisciplinary involvement (especially clinical engineers and clinicians) in purchasing decision-making to balance technical, financial, safety and clinical aspects of device selection, and the potential of increasing evidence-based decisions using approaches ranging from hospital-based health technology assessments, ergonomics, to conducting user ‘trials’ of the device in use before purchase.

**Conclusions** We highlight the lack of rigorous empirical work on this topic, calling for more intervention based and empirical work to advance the evidence base in this domain to advance knowledge, policy and practice.

**Strengths and limitations of this study**

*   - First systematic review of empirical work conducted in hospitals on purchasing of high-cost medical devices

*   - Broad search covering a range of disciplines and study types

*   - Limited to high-cost equipment which is challenging to differentiate across studies and has no standardised ‘value’ globally

Keywords
*   Purchasing
*   procurement
*   high-cost equipment
*   medical devices
*   hospitals
*   systematic review
*   materials management

## INTRODUCTION

### Context

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), medical devices and equipment are essential for maintaining health system performance.[1] Inadequate selection and distribution of technologies can create inefficiencies and waste,[2] or create risks to quality of health services, such as in a pandemic.[3,4] To avoid these risks, a large body of literature concentrates on designing devices for patient safety, while other studies have focussed on adhering to regulatory requirements to ensure devices are safe enough for the market. Following this, devices may be evaluated to understand its impacts in specific healthcare contexts and compared against available alternatives, which encompass the field of Health Technology Assessment (HTA).[5] However, there has been less attention paid to the next steps: acquiring, purchasing or procurement of these devices by the health system.

Medical device purchasing, more comprehensively known as procurement, goes beyond basic contracting between the supplier and health provider; it requires consideration of user needs, technical maintenance, training needs, adequate consumables, and how they can be disposed.[6] Despite the potential role purchasing processes play in promoting patient safety[7,8] and efficiency,[9] studies suggest these are not optimised for efficiency and quality. A study comparing medical device purchasing across five countries found that there is more focus on cost-containment, and less on quality and health outcomes.[10] Empirical studies of purchasers in UK hospitals have shown that there are a wide range of stakeholders potentially involved in purchasing decisions (from clinicians, nurses, biomedical engineers, finance staff and/or managers), but their responsibilities and protocols are ill-defined, their skills and expertise differ,[11] they often work in silos and make decisions under high pressure conditions,[12] and that the lack of stakeholder analysis as part of purchasing planning processes resulted in conflicts and delays in decisions.[13] A more recent scoping literature review of the logistics function in hospitals demonstrated that logistics functions can be highly inefficient and fragmented.[14]

### Need for this review

Understanding purchasing processes can help us uncover why some of these inefficiencies and tensions exist, by exploring the inner workings of the environment, protocols, behaviours and organization of purchasing staff and departments, and thereby identifying areas for improved practices. In this review, we sought to identify studies that specifically focus on the purchasing of high-cost medical equipment in hospitals, in high-income settings. Specifically, this meant identifying any process, procedure, method, or approach used within a hospital to reach decisions about which equipment would be purchased. While there are reviews of good practice in purchasing and supply chain management and their applications in health care settings generally,[15,16] to our knowledge there are no comprehensive reviews that demonstrate existing approaches, practices and methods used for purchasing of medical devices and equipment in hospitals specifically in high-income settings. The most similar existing reviews that we found so far include a review of methods for procurement of medical devices and equipment focussing exclusively on low- and middle-income countries,[17] a realist review of theoretical and empirical literature on procurement and supply chain management practices more generally,[15] and a rapid evidence assessment of literature with lessons from the non-health sector to inform health purchasing and supply chain management.[16] None of these systematically searched for academic studies that focussed on the internal workings of a hospital to identify current practices and understand purchasing behaviours, processes and approaches. Two exceptions which do cover activities within hospitals, but with a different scope, are the review by Volland et al 2017[18] which examined studies covering materials management and logistics in hospitals, but with a focus on quantitative methods, and Trindade et al 2019 who focussed on the qualitative assessment of devices, not the process of procurement as a whole.[19]

### Objective and scope of the review

Our research question in this review is framed as: What does the academic literature tell us about the way in which high-cost equipment is purchased in hospitals in higher income settings?

Our review focuses on the steps in hospitals that occur after any HTA exercise, whether it was national- or hospital-based. Medical device purchasing sits within other activities in hospitals, including: health technology management, materials management, supply chain and logistics. Our focus is on what is commonly termed the acquisition process, which begins the moment the need for a new or replacement device is identified, to the moment it is installed and ready for operation. For a comprehensive view of how the medical device and equipment purchasing function of a hospital fits within its wider activities, we refer readers to the WHO procurement process guide.[20]

## METHOD

We followed Cochrane Collaboration’s methods in conducting this systematic review [21] and complied with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).[22] The full protocol for this systematic review is published elsewhere[23] and summarised below.

### Search methods

On 13 August 2020, we searched the following from inception: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, EconLit and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I via ProQuest, Embase, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in Process via Ovid SP, Google and Google Scholar, Health Management and Policy Database via Ovid SP, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, International HTA Database, NHS EED via CRD Web, Science Citation Index-Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Emerging Sources Citation Index via Web of Science, Scopus, and Zetoc conference search. An information scientist designed, tested, revised, and ran the searches in collaboration with the review team. The search consisted of three main blocks of setting, product, and process. All search strategies for all sources are reported in Appendix 1.

### Eligibility criteria

#### We included the studies if they met the following criteria

***Process* :** The study describes the process for the purchase (also known as procurement or acquisition) of high-cost medical devices and/or equipment; ***Setting:*** The study setting is one or more hospitals or departments within the hospital(s) in high-income countries (using OECD countries as a proxy indicator for high-income); ***Product:*** The purchased product is a single or a group of high-cost (also known as high-value or capital) medical devices or equipment; ***Practice:*** Studies conducted between 2000-2020 to represent ‘current’ processes reported in hospitals. Studies not demonstrating influence on purchasing decisions or theoretical models not assessed, piloted or evaluated in hospital settings were excluded.

### Study selection

We used EndNote to remove the duplicates and Rayyan for screening the titles and abstracts. Two independent reviewers piloted the screening based on eligibility criteria before conducting a sensitive screening. Two independent reviewers re-screened these relevant/possibility relevant records from sensitive screening and resolved the disagreements in weekly group meetings. We followed dual-screening and arbitration by a third reviewer for the full text screening step. We recorded and reported the reasons for exclusion for any excluded paper at full text stage (Figure 1).

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/11/11/2021.11.10.21266152/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/11/2021.11.10.21266152/F1)

Figure 1. 
PRISMA flowchart

### Data extraction

We designed and tested the data extraction form in a spreadsheet shared via Google Sheets to enter: year in which the study was published, country in which the study took place, and number of hospitals included in the study, type of high-cost equipment that is the subject of the study (if specified), purchasing process, approach or method outlined in the study (‘intervention’), outcomes, lessons and/or recommendations emerging from the study, research method adopted in the study, limitations of the study as reported by the study authors. One reviewer extracted the information from each study, and the work was double-checked and, if necessary, completed by another reviewer. Any questions were discussed in the bi-weekly meetings.

### Data synthesis

We summarised the information from the literature in tables and lists. Because of heterogeneity of study designs across the small number of included studies, we did not conduct any quality assessment of the included studies; however, we reported the limitations listed by the researchers for their study.

### Protocol registration

This review was registered in Open Science Framework.[24]

## RESULTS

Out of an initial 9437 retrieved records, 24 studies were selected for inclusion (shown in Table 1). These included research articles (n=21), PhD/Masters theses (n=2), and one book chapter. Countries in which the hospitals were based for these studies were USA (n=10), UK (n=7), Italy (n=2), Mexico (n=2), Canada (n=2), and one from Australia, Greece, Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands, and Scotland, including cross-country comparisons. Most studies were conducted in one hospital, with a few reporting work across 2-44 hospitals. The types of equipment that were the focus of these studies ranged from orthopaedic implants, to diagnostic lab equipment, and larger investments such as MRI scanners and surgical robots. We identified a diversity of disciplines represented by the journals where these studies were published, reflecting the diversity in how the subject of purchasing high-cost medical equipment is addressed in academic work. Study types included descriptions of processes taking place within or across hospitals (n=14), which had no formal evaluations but three of which reported cost savings; empirical studies in which hospital records or participant data were analysed (n=8), and evaluations or pilots of proposed purchasing processes (n=2).

View this table:
[Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/11/2021.11.10.21266152/T1)

Table 1 
Full list of included studies

Although excluded in our own review during full-text filtering, we had identified 20 studies that combined HB-HTA or other assessment methods with decision criteria directed towards a purchasing decision, which we had to exclude because of their lack of clarity on whether these methods had direct influence on the purchasing process or final decision itself within a hospital context. Examples include Jurickova et al 2014 using value-enginering and multicriteria methods,[58] Girginer et al 2008 using analytical hierarchy methods,[59] and Hospodková et al 2019 using hospital-based HTA.[60]

### Key findings from studies

The two most prominent elements of purchasing processes identified across most of the included studies were (a) the roles of various stakeholders involved, and (b) the approaches to balancing technical, financial and clinical requirements.

#### Stakeholders and teams involved

Table 2 shows the involvement of roles in the procurement process as mentioned in the included studies, representing a combination of roles either involved in the studies themselves, and in the project teams observed in the studies. The studies reviewed were specific and emphatic about the importance of stakeholders as part of the decision-making process, specifying who exactly should be involved and how. Two stakeholder groups in particular were emphasised: clinicians and the clinical engineers, sometimes explicitly as the sole focus of the study, and at other times mentioned implicitly as part of the process. Greenwood et al 2014 reported on how the role of the clinical engineer in a children’s hospital in Canada progressed from a primary responsibility in equipment maintenance to health technology management more generally.[27] Madhlambudzi & Papanagnou(2019) studied the involvement and salience of several stakeholders in purchasing of diagnostic equipment and found that hospitals fail to identify key stakeholders resulting in possible delays and conflicts.[37] Haas et al. (2017) concluded that a hospital committee resulted in lower purchasing prices than when physicians selected vendors directly in a study of the selection of prosthetic implants.[28] However, committees are not flawless; Licona et al (2009) described a case study to demonstrate involvement of an interdisciplinary network of professionals in health technology management: despite the involved network several anomalies were identified such as uncertainty of who would install equipment after a bidding process.[35]

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/11/2021.11.10.21266152/T2)

Table 2: 
Stakeholders involved in purchasing processes as identified in the studies

Although not always the primary focus of the study, some made explicit that some form of approach that unifies how various purchasing stakeholders come together is important: Langenburg et al 2003, for instance, describe their new process as developing a ‘vision’ with paediatric surgeons, research director, a biomedical engineer and a physicist and the hospital chief executive officer, to collaborative (with industry partners) develop a short- and long-term education, research and education plan for robotic surgery.[31] Haselkorn et al (2007) also described the importance of an organizational culture as a crucial component for success in the procurement process.[29] Regardless of it being a cultural or difference in vision, fundamental differences in purchasing projects can be identified. McCue (2011) identified differences in market, organizational and financial factors associated with capital expenditure between hospitals of different size (e.g. beds) or located in different areas (e.g. urban, rural).[38] Finally, two studies specifically elicited challenges and barriers to effective purchasing. Kuper et al (2011) identified barriers to procurement and implementation of oesophageal Doppler monitoring in three UK hospitals, noting that silo budgeting and skepticism about new products challenged investment decisions; which were overcome by ‘championing’ the technology via clinicians while providing evidence of the potential benefits of the proposed technology.[30]

#### Evaluating technical, financial, and clinical elements

In the procurement of high cost, often specialized medical equipment it is necessary to balance technical, financial and clinical factors as different interests are at stake. In essence a hospital is often a company which means in the long run it should be financially feasible, but companies with big personal interests for its clients, the patients. Continuity and quality, or safety, must be guaranteed by setting technical requirements and at the same time advanced (or novel) interventions must be continuously developed and challenged in clinical aspirations. Langenburg et al. (2003) described a program combining technical, financial, and clinical elements condensed in a training, implementation and development program for surgical robotics, and found that cooperation of surgeons, staff, and a corporate partner were key to the development of a successful new program (e.g. within one year minimally invasive surgery on a patient is performed).[12] Nisbet et al (2001) describe a process in which financial and technical considerations were taken into account to decide on whether to lease or purchase radiotherapy equipment.[41] Li et al. (2015) ranked factors that influence purchasing decisions and demonstrated that clinical evidence and cost effectiveness are more important than personal preference, regardless of the stakeholder role.[34] Another example of combining multiple disciplines in order to successfully reduce costs is implementing a value based process.[40,42,43]

In order to evaluate the clinical, technical and financial elements, more formal methods are described in some studies. Pandit et al. (2011) describe a working party set up nationally to advise on how to set up a ‘trial’ specifically for airway devices and guides hospital in implementation of this trial together with company (who sponsors it); results published for other hospitals and results in final purchase.[44] The notion of more information or ‘evidence’ to inform selection is reported in different ways. Satta el al. 2019 conducted ‘user trials’ for 10 months to test each ophthalmic surgery femtosecond laser in real-life settings before selecting a supplier.[46] Other studies reported on the role of hospital-based HTA as a means to bring evidence into decision. Mitchell et al. (2010) describe how hospital based HTA provides more reliable data to the selection process by including local data when there is too little peer-reviewed evidence.[39] According to the study by Callea et al. 2017, hospital-based HTAs turn out to serve mainly as a cost containment tool in the selection process while at the same time hospitals using this method are found to pay actually 8.3% more for the same equipment.[25]

### Additional findings

In this section we report on approaches and processes identified less frequently across the included studied. Less prominent approaches and processes identified in the studies included the need for strategic and long-term planning, streamlining management processes, varied approaches to the tendering process, and relationships with suppliers. Greenwood et al 2014 described a system in which clinical engineers adopt the role of a long-term manager for health technology using three long term planning variants (e.g. theoretical replacement, emerging technology and fleet equipment), resulting in an improvement in safety and continuation of clinician acceptance.[27] A suggestion to streamline the management process is the implementation of a management information system described by Larios et al. 2000,[32] where necessary information for specification and selection of medical equipment can be documented and it is found to improve timeliness, procedural efficiency, consistency and information integration. For the development of new programs a business plan is essential), according to two studies[29,31] and proper planning and management can result in prevention of unnecessary buying according to Verma and Peacock 2014.[47] With regards to tendering, Satta et al 2019 described a process in which stringent specifications were laid out in a tender specifications for an ophthalmic surgery femtosecond laser, but note the disadvantage that their whole process of laying such specific specifications and conducting trials took about 4 years.[46] Licona et al. (2009) describe several iterations in the specification process to avoid last minute changes, and discuss that stringent specifications may lead to the selection of products with the lowest technical and qualitative requirements.[35] In another study, less stringent tender specifications actually showed to lead to substantial cost savings: instead, an iterative negotiation process with multiple vendors after a broad request for proposals led to an aggressive form of competition with varying strategies to form a solution.[26] Finally, there appears to be a reciprocity between industry and hospitals: as clinical trials with equipment have the potential to deliver evidence of functionality for devices, healthcare and industry are incentivised to cooperate in creating and obtaining this evidence.[44]

## DISCUSSION

In this systematic review we sought to identify studies that focus on approaches to purchasing of high-cost medical equipment in hospitals, in high-income countries (using OECD countries as a proxy indicator for higher income). Given the heterogeneity of study designs considered in this review, we did not apply formal quality rating system to the studies, and did not seek to find examples of ‘best’ practices, but rather attempt to identify and describe any empirical work conducted in hospital environments focussing on purchasing processes, to characterise the nature of the studies and types of approaches or interventions reported.

### Limitations of this review

We note in our introduction that this review fulfils a gap in current academic literature, which is the evidence on empirical work conducted in hospitals for purchasing medical devices and equipment. We only partly fill this gap because our review is limited to ‘high-cost’ equipment and to high-income countries, resulting in a limited picture of the purchase of other materials, supplies and devices in hospitals in a variety of contexts. Our main reasoning for this is the very different nature of processes and financial accounting for higher cost equipment in hospitals compared to lower cost devices, consumables and other supplies, which helped give a specific focus to our study. However, we found the distinction between high- and low-cost extremely challenging and consulted expert practitioners involved in hospital purchasing to advise on an appropriate demarcation, and checked for conflicts in inclusion decisions across the review team. However, we also note that studies that did not specify whether they were dealing with high- or low-cost equipment were excluded (n=47 during full text review), although some important insights could have been drawn from these. Finally, we note that another major limitation is that investment decisions do not only account for the single price of a product, but might be creating a contract of high value through bulk purchases of lower-priced devices. Again, through consultation with our experts we concluded that these specific demarcations can vary between hospitals within and across countries, and the themes derived from our review are still helpful indications of how these processes work.

Conference papers in the field of operations management and supply chains can provide useful insights into current innovations in the field – we did include them if the full text was available for review, but had to exclude those with only abstracts available. We note that we excluded studies not written in English (about 40 studies post-2000) which might have included important lessons of practice and research conducted in various global settings. During our first exclusion step (abstract/title) we came across many articles written by professional and academic experts, with no reported empirical work, but potentially extremely useful experiences to inform future practice. As our study was limited to academic research, these were excluded but could provide the basis for a targeted review of professional practice. Finally, we defined the scope of this review to start when the need for equipment is identified. We note that this leaves out a major factor of influence to the technology management process: how the need is identified, which can influence cost containment and risk assessment further down in the procurement process.

### Limitations of the reviewed studies: the nature of ‘evidence’ in this field

The motivation for conducting this review stemmed from an initial scoping search for literature on how different disciplines and researchers approach the subject of purchasing in hospitals. We sought empirical work (broadened to include single case studies) in order to provide an overview of the current evidence base for approaches to purchasing of high-cost medical equipment in hospitals. However, only three studies included any form of evaluation of their ‘purchasing process’ intervention, including one which was a pilot study based on the model developed in the study. The majority of the studies described the purchasing process in the hospital and reported outcomes such as cost savings, but did not fully report how these outcomes were assessed. We concluded that there is not yet a solid ‘evidence base’ for how to improve the process of purchasing. Conscious that we make this conclusion for studies only of high-cost medical equipment, we propose that more research that encompasses a variety of health technologies in intramural care settings can begin to provide a more comprehensive evidence base. Despite our limited focus, however, our conclusions echo those made by previous studies. A review of non-health approaches to purchasing and supply chain management literature noted that empirical work was limited, and studies “frequently fail to assess (or describe) the robustness of their methodological approaches when linking interventions with outcomes, such as cost savings or improved performance”.[16]

Conducting strong empirical work in this domain can be challenging: the theories, frameworks and methodologies necessary to address the organisational domain of healthcare (of which purchasing is one component) need to be drawn from fields such as operations research, economics, and supply chain management, and draw on approaches such as decision theory, and systems and design approaches. This presents challenges: first, the fields of purchasing and supply chain management, for example, has in itself been criticised for the lack of strong empirical work[49] and poor quality of theoretical development and discussion, and coherence,[50] and second, the application of these approaches in real health care settings has also been limited, exemplified by a recent systematic review of application of systems approaches in healthcare.[51] A recent review on logistical parameters within international research on hospitals noted that “the international literature does not, by definition, reflect what really happens in hospitals.”[52] Generally, it has been noted that evidence-based management (if we consider procurement processes to fall under a hospital’s management) in healthcare is not yet commonplace and takes various forms.[53]

### Implications for practice: lessons learned for hospital purchasing

Despite the limitations discussed above, there are some repeating actions identified in our studies that have implications for practice. Specifically, the necessity of bringing together a skilled multidisciplinary team for large investment items is highlighted across most of the studies as the key ‘intervention’ for their purchasing process. We recognise these are not conclusions made based on evaluations, but their prominence in reporting this as a key feature merits its mention. Specifically, the role of the clinician in some form of committee or decision team is emphasised, as well as the clinical engineering team as a genuine stakeholder in the final decision. Studies conducted elsewhere on lower value equipment have also highlighted the role of the clinical engineer, and the WHO’s technical series on medical device procurement specifically mentions clinical engineers as the primary role for health technology management in hospitals.[54] But how seriously this role is taken when it comes to the final investment decision remains unknown in practice.

The second most prominent theme across the studies is the importance of balancing technical, financial and clinical requirements, specifically by using some formalised method for this assessment. This could be implemented through user trials to gather the necessary evidence on device performance, literature reviews or indeed through a formal hospital-based HTA process. However, we note from some of the other studies we came across on the emergence and progress of HB-HTA, that there is limited evidence on whether or not these processes end up influencing investment or purchasing decisions (see, for example, Gagnon 2014[55] and Almeida et al. 2019,[56] and research suggests that there has been a low to moderate use of economics frameworks or value-oriented decisions in local hospital technology decision-making.[57]

### Implications for future research

Based on the limitations and implications discussed above, we recommend where research is needed to improve the evidence base for improving medical equipment purchasing decisions in hospitals. First, the demarcation challenges identified earlier (in our case, between high- and low-cost equipment), highlight the importance of encouraging specificity in studies pertaining to any management of technology in hospitals in future research. Some studies simply mention ‘supplies’ or ‘materials’ or ‘technology’ or ‘equipment’, and are insufficient to glean best practices and to ascertain how the lessons learned from the studies can be applied in both future research and practice. Specificity can also help create other ways of investigating the processes for different types of hospital purchases: in practice, many materials and supplies tend to involve different processes simply depending on their cost (and not unit cost, but cost of the whole purchase contract). Future studies could also investigate how creating processes differentiated by risk (or patient safety or criticality) rather than cost, would affect the effectiveness of the purchasing processes in supporting clinical needs. Second, it would be worth investigating the increase in assessment and evaluation methods (such as HB-HTA and human factors engineering), and how this connects and affects the ultimate purchasing decision. Connecting HB-HTA to final hospital investments in particular has been shown to be limited, the research challenge would be to investigate why, whether and how barriers need to be overcome to enable more evidence-informed hospital purchases. Finally, we challenge the research community to increase the evaluation of interventions within hospital’s organisational domain, explore the application of theories from different disciplines (including, but not limited to, operations research, engineering design, systems theory and decision theory) in this domain, and use future empirical work to further inform the theoretical advances back into those fields.

## CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we sought to identify studies that focus on the purchasing of high-cost medical equipment in hospitals, in high-income countries. Our 24 included studies point to the importance of multidisciplinary involvement (especially clinical engineers and clinicians) in purchasing decision-making to balance technical, financial, safety and clinical aspects of device selection, and highlight the potential of increasing evidence-informed decisions using approaches such as hospital-based health technology assessments or conducting user ‘trials’ of the device in use before purchase. Our recommendations for future research is to have increased specificity in the types of materials, devices or equipment being studied and reported, given that the diversity of such purchases with and across hospitals globally means lessons learned can otherwise not be applied in practice. Echoing other scholarship on the domains of management, operations research and supply chain management, we advocate for more intervention-based and empirical work to advance the evidence base in this domain.

## Supporting information

PRISMA checklist [[supplements/266152_file03.docx]](pending:yes)

Appendix 1 [[supplements/266152_file04.docx]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

## OTHER INFORMATION

## Author contributions

FS and SHK drafted the protocol. HB, BD, AC, JE commented on the draft protocol. FS and JE piloted the title and abstract screening stage for the first 500 records. FS completed the first round of screening. SHK, HB and AC screened the Included and Maybe folders. SHK made the final decisions when disagreements continued. FS, HB, and BD extracted the data and SHK double-checked and completed the extracted data when needed. SHK and BD summarised the results and drafted the final report. All authors read, commented, revised and approved the final manuscript before submission.

## Ethics statement

This review did not involve experiments on any animal or human subjects.

## Patient and Public Involvement

This review involved studying of academic literature only and therefore the involvement of patients or the public was not applicable.

## Funding support

This project was initially funded through an internal grant from King’s College London awarded to SHK, and later subsidised through the internal grant for the Delft Technology Fellowship awarded to SHK. No other external funding supported this work.

## Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the expert practitioners working in hospital purchasing who provided guidance and advice during this project.

*   Received November 10, 2021.
*   Revision received November 10, 2021.
*   Accepted November 11, 2021.


*   © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## REFERENCES

1.  1.De Savigny D, Adam T, eds. Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. World Health Organization, 2009.
    
    

2.  2.Shishkin S, Liudmila Z. Adopting new medical technologies in Russian hospitals: what causes inefficiency?(qualitative study). Health Econ Policy Law 2018;13.1:33–49.
    
    

3.  3.Ranney M, Griffeth V, Jha A. Critical supply shortages—the need for ventilators and personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic. N Engl J Med 2020;382.18:e41.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

4.  4.Miller F, Young S, Dobrow M, et al. Vulnerability of the medical product supply chain: the wake-up call of COVID-19. BMJ Qual Saf 2021;30.4:331–335.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicWhjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjMwLzQvMzMxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMTEvMTEvMjAyMS4xMS4xMC4yMTI2NjE1Mi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

5.  5.Health Technology Assessment International. What is HTA? date accessed Aug. 1, 2013 at: [http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=428](http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=428).
    
    

6.  6.World Health Organization. Procurement process resource guide. WHO Medical device technical series. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization 2011.
    
    

7.  7.Johnson T, Zhang J, Patel V, et al. The role of patient safety in the device purchasing process. Safety in Device Purchasing 2005;1:341–352.
    
    

8.  8.Hinrichs S, Dickerson T, Clarkson J. Stakeholder challenges in purchasing medical devices for patient safety. J Patient Saf 2013;9.1:36–43.
    
    

9.  9.National Audit Office. The Procurement of Consumables by NHS Acute and Foundation Trusts. London: National Audit Office 2011.
    
    

10. 10.Sorenson C, Kanavos P. Medical technology procurement in Europe: A cross-country comparison of current practice and policy. Health policy 2011;100.1:43–50.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20846739&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

11. 11.Hinrichs S, Dickerson T, Clarkson J. Stakeholder challenges in purchasing medical devices for patient safety. J Patient Saf 2013;9.1:36–43.
    
    

12. 12.Boulding H, Hinrichs-Krapels S. Factors influencing procurement behaviour among requisitioners in an NHS trust: A qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res (accepted, in press)
    
    

13. 13.Madhlambudzi P, Papanagnou C. Stakeholder identification and salience in purchasing: an empirical study from UK hospitals. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management 2019;17.4:213–228.
    
    

14. 14.van der Ham A, Boersma H, van Raak A, et al. Identifying logistical parameters in hospitals: does literature reflect integration in hospitals? A scoping study. Health Serv Manage Res 2019;32.3:158–165.
    
    

15. 15.Sanderson J, Lonsdale C, Mannion R, et al. Towards a framework for enhancing procurement and supply chain management practice in the NHS: lessons for managers and clinicians from a synthesis of the theoretical and empirical literature. Health Services and Delivery Research 2015;3.18.
    
    

16. 16.Hinrichs S, Jahagirdar D, Miani C, et al. Learning for the NHS on procurement and supply chain management: a rapid evidence assessment. Health Services and Delivery Research 2014;2.55.
    
    

17. 17.Diaconu K, Chen Y, Cummins C, et al. Methods for medical device and equipment procurement and prioritization within low-and middle-income countries: findings of a systematic literature review. Global Health 2017;13.1:1–16.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

18. 18.Volland J, Fügener A, Schoenfelder J, et al. Material logistics in hospitals: a literature review. Omega (Westport) 2017;69:82–101.
    
    

19. 19.Trindade E, Hayashi E, Melchior S, et al. Functional evaluation of medical devices. Vigilancia Sanitaria Em Debate-Sociedade Ciencia & Tecnologia 2019;7.4:77–84.
    
    

20. 20.World Health Organization. Procurement process resource guide. 2011. [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241501378](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241501378) (accessed 17 September 2021)
    
    

21. 21.Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edition. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons 2019.
    
    

22. 22.Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE1OiIzNzIvbWFyMjlfMi9uNzEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8xMS8xMS8yMDIxLjExLjEwLjIxMjY2MTUyLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

23. 23.Hinrichs-Krapels S, Boulding H, Chalkidou A, Ditewig B, Erskine J, Shokraneh F. Purchasing High-Cost Medical Equipment in Hospitals in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review Protocol. WikiJournal Preprints (2021, September 7). Retrieved from: [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal\_Preprints/Purchasing\_High-Cost\_Medical\_Equipment\_in\_Hospitals\_in\_OECD\_Countries:\_A\_Systematic\_Review\_Protocol](https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal\_Preprints/Purchasing\_High-Cost\_Medical\_Equipment\_in\_Hospitals\_in\_OECD\_Countries:\_A_Systematic_Review_Protocol)
    
    

24. 24.Shokraneh F, Hinrichs-Krapels S, Chalkidou A, Boulding H, Erskine J. Purchasing high-cost medical equipment in hospitals in OECD countries: A systematic review. Open Science Framework 2021; doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/GTXN8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.17605/OSF.IO/GTXN8&link_type=DOI) 

25. 25.Callea G, Armeni P, Marsilio M, et al. The impact of HTA and procurement practices on the selection and prices of medical devices. Soc Sci Med 2017;174:89–95.
    
    

26. 26.Eagle K, Knight B, Moscucc, M, et al. Competitive bidding for interventional cardiology supplies: lessons learned during round 2. Am J Manag Care 2002;8.4:384–388.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11950132&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000174906100008&link_type=ISI) 

27. 27.Greenwood K, Janvier M, Zhang Y, et al. The Dividends of an Effective Clinical Technology Management Program. Journal of Clinical Engineering 2014;39(1):28–32.
    
    

28. 28.Haas D, Bozic K, DiGioia A, et al. Drivers of the variation in prosthetic implant purchase prices for total knee and total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 2017;32.2:347–350
    
    

29. 29.Haselkorn A, Rosenstein A, Rao A, et al. New technology planning and approval: critical factors for success. Am J Med Qual 2007;22.3:164–169.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/1062860607300362&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17485557&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000246229400003&link_type=ISI) 

30. 30.Kuper M, Gold S, Callow C, et al. Intraoperative fluid management guided by oesophageal Doppler monitoring. BMJ 2011;342.
    
    

31. 31.Langenburg S, Kabeer M, Knight C, et al. Surgical robotics: Creating a new program. Pediatric Endosurgery and Innovative Techniques 2003;7.4:415–419.
    
    

32. 32.Larios Y, Matsopoulos G, Askounis D, et al. Reengineering the biomedical-equipment procurement process through an integrated Management Information System. Technology and Health Care 2000;8.5:299–313.
    
    

33. 33.Lindgreen A, Antioco M, Harness D, et al. Purchasing and marketing of social and environmental sustainability for high-tech medical equipment. Journal of Business Ethics 2009;85.2:445–462.
    
    

34. 34.Li C, Vannabouathong C, Sprague S, et al. Orthopedic Implant Value Drivers: A Qualitative Survey Study of Hospital Purchasing Administrators. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2015;25.3.
    
    

35. 35.Licona F, Leehan J, Méndez M, et al. Knowledge network for medical technology management in Mexico. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25.4:564–569.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19845987&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

36. 36.Lingg M, Wyss K, Durán-Arenas L. Effects of procurement practices on quality of medical device or service received: a qualitative study comparing countries. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16.1:1–13.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12913-016-1486-3&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26728278&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

37. 37.Madhlambudzi P, Papanagnou C. Stakeholder identification and salience in purchasing: an empirical study from UK hospitals. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management 2019;17.4:213–228.
    
    

38. 38.McCue M. Association of market, organizational and financial factors with the number, and types of capital expenditures. Health Care Manage Rev 2011;36.1:67–77.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21157232&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

39. 39.Mitchell M, Williams K, Brennan P, et al. Integrating local data into hospital-based healthcare technology assessment: two case studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010;26.3:294–300.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S0266462310000334&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20584358&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

40. 40.Mosessian C. Value Based Purchasing: Decision-Making Processes Underlying Hospital Acquisitions of Orthopedic Devices (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California) 2016.
    
    

41. 41.Nisbet A, Ward A. Radiotherapy equipment—purchase or lease?. Br J Radiol 2001;74.884:735–744.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11511499&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

42. 42.Obremskey W, Dail T, Jahangir A. Value-based purchasing of medical devices. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470.4:1054–1064.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11999-011-2147-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22033872&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

43. 43.Olson S, Obremskey W, Bozic K. Healthcare technology: physician collaboration in reducing the surgical cost. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471.6:1854–1864.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11999-013-2828-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23404417&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

44. 44.Pandit J, Popat M, Cook T, et al. The Difficult Airway Society ‘ADEPT’ guidance on selecting airway devices: the basis of a strategy for equipment evaluation. Anaesthesia 2011;66.8:726–737.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06787.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21707562&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F11%2F11%2F2021.11.10.21266152.atom) 

45. 45.Saaid H, Stewart D, England I, et al. The impact of health technology assessment on decision-making processes in public versus not-for-profit private hospitals. Am J Med 2011;2.2:72–8.
    
    

46. 46.Satta F, Monti M, Bravi M, et al. Public procurement of innovative medical technology: Femtosecond and excimer laser platform for ophthalmic surgery. Clinical Engineering Handbook. Academic Press 2020:52–60.
    
    

47. 47.Verma P, Peacock M. The management of ultrasound equipment at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Ultrasound 2014;22.1:61–65.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/1742271X13517382&link_type=DOI) 

48. 48.Wong, F. Risk management of public finance initiative projects in healthcare sectors in the UK. London, United Kingdom: University College of London 2007.
    
    

49. 49.Carter C, Ellram L. Thirty-Rve Years of The Journal of Supply Chain Management: Where Have We Been and Where are We Going?. Journal of Supply Chain Management 2003;39.1:27–39.
    
    

50. 50.Harland C, Lamming R, Walker H, et al. Supply management: is it a discipline?. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 2006;26.7;730–753.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1108/01443570610672211&link_type=DOI) 

51. 51.Komashie A, Ward J, Bashford T, et al. Systems approach to health service design, delivery and improvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2021;11.1:e037667.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvMS9lMDM3NjY3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMTEvMTEvMjAyMS4xMS4xMC4yMTI2NjE1Mi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

52. 52.van der Ham A, Boersma H, van Raak A, et al. Identifying logistical parameters in hospitals: does literature reflect integration in hospitals? A scoping study. Health Serv Manage Res 2019;32.3:158–165.
    
    

53. 53.Dopson, S, Bennett C, Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Fischer M, Ledger J, McCulloch J, McGivern G. Health care managers’ access and use of management research. National Institute for Health Research. London, United Kingdom.
    
    

54. 54.World Health Organization. Global atlas of medical devices. 2017. [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241512312](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241512312) (accessed 17 September 2021)
    
    

55. 55.Gagnon M. Hospital-based health technology assessment: developments to date. Pharmacoeconomics 2014;32.9:819–824.
    
    

56. 56.Almeida N, Mines L, Nicolau I, et al. A Framework for Aiding the Translation of Scientific Evidence into Policy: The Experience of a Hospital-Based Technology Assessment Unit. International journal of technology assessment in health care 2019;35.3:204–211.
    
    

57. 57.Grundy Q. Whether something cool is good enough: The role of evidence, sales representatives and nurses’ expertise in hospital purchasing decisions. Social Science & Medicine 2016;165:82–91.
    
    

58. 58.JuřičNová I, Kraina A. Case study: Mobile X-ray equipment selection for a traumatology department using value engineering and multi-criteria decision methods. InProc. IWBBIO 2014: 2nd Int. Work-Conference On Bioinformatics And Biomedical Engineering 2014 (pp. 1389–1402)
    
    

59. 59.Girginer NU, Uçkun N, Çelik AE. Usage of analytic hierarchy process in medical equipment purchasing decisions: a university hospital case. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences. 2008;7(26):138–53.
    
    

60. 60.Hospodková P, Kudrna P, Rogalewicz V. Total cost of ownership as a management tool for medical devices planning: a case study of a ST-analyzer in perinatology. InMediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 2019 Sep 26 (pp. 1078–1084). Springer, Cham.