RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Purchasing high-cost medical equipment in hospitals: A systematic review
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.11.10.21266152
DO 10.1101/2021.11.10.21266152
A1 Hinrichs-Krapels, Saba
A1 Ditewig, Bor
A1 Boulding, Harriet
A1 Chalkidou, Anastasia
A1 Erskine, Jamie
A1 Shokraneh, Farhad
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/11/2021.11.10.21266152.abstract
AB 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 reviewMethods 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’ globallyCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=WikiJournal_Preprints/Purchasing_High-Cost_Medical_Equipment_in_Hospitals_in_OECD_Countries:_A_Systematic_Review_Protocol&oldid=2309888 Funding StatementThis project was initially funded through an internal grant from Kings College London, and later subsidised through the internal grant for the Delft Technology Fellowship. No other external funding supported this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript