Abstract
Objectives To examine the current state of Unique Device Identifier (UDI) implementation, including barriers and facilitators, among eight health systems participating in a research network committed to real-world evidence (RWE) generation for medical devices.
Design Mixed methods, including a structured survey and semi-structured interviews.
Setting Eight health systems participating in the National Evaluation System for health Technology research network within the United States.
Participants Individuals identified as being involved in or knowledgeable about UDI implementation or medical device identification from supply chain, information technology, and high-volume procedural area(s) in their health system.
Main Outcomes Measures Interview topics were related to UDI implementation, including barriers and facilitators; UDI use; benefits of UDI adoption; and vision for UDI implementation. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis, drawing on prior conceptual models of UDI implementation and the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. A brief survey of health system characteristics and scope of UDI implementation was also conducted.
Results Thirty-five individuals completed interviews. Three of eight health systems reported having implemented UDI. Themes identified about barriers and facilitators to UDI implementation included knowledge of the UDI and its benefits among decision makers; organizational systems, culture, and networks that support technology and workflow changes; and external factors such as policy mandates and technology. A final theme focused on the availability of UDIs for RWE; lack of availability significantly hindered RWE studies on medical devices.
Conclusions UDI adoption within health systems requires knowledge of and impetus to achieve operational and clinical benefits. These are necessary to support UDI availability for medical device safety and effectiveness studies and RWE generation.
What is already known on this topic
Recent legislation and policy have placed increased emphasis on tracking medical device safety and effectiveness using real-world evidence (RWE).
The unique device identifier (UDI), available on labels of most moderate- and high-risk medical devices, ensures accurate and reliable medical device identification and tracking.
What this study adds
Even among health systems committed to RWE generation, UDIs are often not available within their data sources to enable effective medical device identification for RWE studies.
Knowledge by health system leaders about UDI benefits and buy-in about its operational and clinical benefits are necessary for UDI implementation and availability for RWE generation.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy
Results demonstrate the need to increase awareness and provide guidance about the value of UDI use to health system leadership.
Policy mandates are necessary to drive greater UDI adoption in health systems and support real-world evidence generation.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Dhruva receives research support from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC) as part of the National Evaluation System for health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), Greenwall Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management, Arnold Ventures, and Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the MDIC as part of the NESTcc, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to establish the Good Pharma Scorecard at Bioethics International; in addition, Dr. Ross is an expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. Dr. Drozda has received research support from Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson. His non-dependent son is an employee of Boston Scientific. Natalia Wilson has received research support from the MDIC as part of the NESTcc, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic; serves on advisory committees for the AIM North America UDI Advisory Committee, Association for Health Care Resource & Materials Management Learning UDI Community Steering Committee; reports consulting for Arizona State University's Center for Healthcare Delivery and Policy, Mass General Brigham; and had purchased stock options in Vitreos Health. The remaining author has nothing to disclose.
Funding Statement
This project was supported by a research grant from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC) as part of the National Evaluation System for health Technology (NEST), an initiative funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through grant 1U01FD006292-01. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views nor the endorsements of the Department of Health and Human Services or the FDA. While MDIC provided feedback on project conception and design, the organization played no role in collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data The research team, not the funder, made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication Views expressed in written materials or publications and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department of Health and Human Services; nor does any mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organization imply endorsement by the United States Government.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Mayo Clinic Francisco Institutional Review Board gave ethical approval for this work.
I 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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
Data are not available given confidentiality provisions as part of informed consent.
