Scientific Communication adrid · Spain EWMA n GNEAUPP 2014 Submitted to the EWMA Journal, based on a presentation given at Plenary Session: Innovation, Know-How, and Technology at the EWMA - GNEAUPP 2014, Madrid Emerging targeted technology to address unmet clinical needs - Implementing a development and adoption strategy When faced with a new or challenging clinical situation, healthcare professionals often, of necessity, innovate by adapting or inventing new care strategies. Despite having a clear drive to innovate and create new medical devices and systems of care, healthcare professionals have frequently not been in the forefront of product development. As a result, healthcare systems have received products and services that were “pushed” to them by industry. These products may not be aligned with the development strategy of healthcare organisations. Moreover, they may not address perceived or actual patient needs. As such, they are not “owned” by clinicians or end users. Changes that are more radical or disruptive have a greater likelihood of eliciting resistance to implementation. There will always be early adopters. However, products or system changes are unlikely to be widely disseminated if (1) the “technology” fails to deliver or (2) there are inflated expectations. WHAT IS INNOVATION? Innovation is the successful implementation of new ideas and is divided into three stages: The CEO of the National Health Technology Adoption Centre, Sally Chisholm, stated: “The need for the rapid, widespread, and systematic adoption of innovation within the NHS has never been more acute.” The same clearly applies to all healthcare systems. If this is the case, then why are innovations not rapidly adopted and universally applied? Currently, the Innovation/Adoption/Diffusion cycle for new medical devices is too long, and it takes an estimated average of 17 years for only 14% of new scientific discoveries to enter dayto-day clinical practice1. This introduces barriers to full adoption and is often controlled by regulatory requirements, reimbursement, and healthcare provider acceptance. If the process is too slow, newer technology becomes available. Innovation is then discouraged, as manufacturers are unable to recoup development costs before the next wave of products launches. The Dutch Royal Academy of Science has recently produced a report2 entitled “Evaluation of New Technology in Healthcare,” in which they offer guidance on the evaluation, use, and regulation of medical devices. The report n Invention or identification – finding new or improved ways of doing things through new devices, therapies, or systems n Adoption – testing new or improved ways of doing things and putting them into practice n Diffusion – replicating new or improved devices, therapies, or processes across the system Although innovation is linked to a process of improvement, it is frequently seen as part of the change process. Innovation may be: n Incremental - building on and improving existing practices n Radical – solving existing problems using a completely new approach n Disruptive - creating an entirely new and unexpected therapy, market, or mode of working WHAT IS INNOVATION WITHIN HEALTH CARE? “An idea, service, or product that is either new to a healthcare system or applied in a way that is new to that system and significantly improves the quality of health and care wherever it is applied”. Professor Peter Vowden Consultant Vascular Surgeon and Visiting Professor of Wound Healing Research, Bradford, UK Clinical Director of the NIHR Healthcare Technology Co-operative for Wound Prevention and Treatment in Bradford, UK. Correspondence: [email protected] Conflicts of interest: None EWMA Journal 2015 vol 15 no 1 35 The eight National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Healthcare Technology Co-‐operatives (HTCs) NHS Organisation Barts Health NHS Trust Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield Teaching hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Clinical Area or Theme Chronic gastrointestinal disease Brain injury Cardiovascular disease Devices for Dignity Wound prevention and treatment (WoundTec HTC) Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Colorectal therapies Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Institute of Mental health and neurodevelopmental Mental Health disorders University Hospitals of Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Trauma management Table 1 The eight National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Healthcare Technology Co-operatives (HTCs) covers a number of issues that are relevant to all healthcare systems, irrespective of the country or area in which they provide services. However, the pressure to rapidly deliver and adopt innovation must not be at the expense of patient safety. Good evidence demonstrating clinical and cost effectiveness must be derived from well-constructed clinical trials. Follow-up post-marketing surveillance data play a vital role in ensuring that data derived from randomised studies are repeated in real-world situations3. A criticism that is frequently raised in medical device-related clinical trials, particularly in the field of wound care products, is a lack of consistency and comparability between studies. This issue is frequently highlighted in systematic reviews4, and the need to work in accordance with the CONSORT statement is further emphasised5. To overcome this, a common platform for evaluation that is similar to the suggested platform for telemedicine (MAST)6 should be introduced. This framework would require both a generic “wound care”-related core and a disease-specific focus that deals with the characteristics of individual wound types, such as diabetic foot ulceration, venous leg ulcers, malignant wounds, or acute traumatic wounds. “Innovation is an ongoing cycle ……. one without a beginning or an end, where one idea always leads to the next.” Diffusion occurs for a number of reasons; (1)Bottom-up pressure from patients, public demand, and individual choice; (2)horizontal pressure from peers, outcome reporting, collaboration, competition, and marketing; (3)top-down pressure from central requirements, regulations, incentives, and guidance. Diffusion is also dependent on the cost-effectiveness model that supports the launch of the initial product, as derived from the original clinical trials, which are replicated for general use. This model can be challenged by the 36 slow uptake of educational support within the healthcare system, changes within the system itself, and the skill of the general healthcare professional when compared to that of an experienced research team. The Whole System Demonstrator trial7 of telemedicine has highlighted the need for careful economic and clinical evaluations of new devices and systems of care in the management of chronic disease8. Technology acceptance can be related to two key functions: the perceived usefulness of the innovation and perceived ease of use. When considering, developing, or introducing innovation, address the following questions: n Is the new behaviour/system/device genuinely useful? How will the “learner” know if it is useful? n Is the new behaviour/system/device easy to use? n If it is not easy to use, can anything be done to improve it? n HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY CO-OPERATIVES (HTCS) In an attempt to address areas of unmet clinical need in the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has established eight HTCs (Table 1), which have been established to: n Act as a catalyst for the NHS “pull” for the develop ment of new medical devices, healthcare technologies, and technology-dependent interventions. n Focus on clinical areas and/or themes of high morbid ity, which have high potentials for improving the qual ity of life for NHS patients and improving the effective ness of healthcare services that support them. n Work collaboratively with patients, patient groups, charities, industry, and academics. The NIHR WoundTec HTC specifically addresses innovation that is related to unmet needs in wound prevention and treatment9. This HTC has specific aims: EWMA Journal 2015 vol 15 no 1 Scientific Communication n Act as a platform for innovation To carry out these aims, the NIHR WoundTec HTC is Identify and develop promising concepts for medical working through a formal collaboration between strate devices gic partners and a network of key stakeholders (patients, n Provide theoretical, methodological, and design patient groups, charities, academics, and industry). The expertise and a clinical base to develop these concepts HTC has taken on a leadership role in identifying unmet into testable interventions and devices needs and developing and translating integrated clinical n Test the feasibility, effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and and research knowledge to patient care, thereby improv acceptability of proposed innovations in NHS settings ing the life of patients, enhancing standards of wound and various care pathways and promote the spread of management, and promoting wealth creation. Figure 1 best practice Identifying areas of need: Patient and Public Involvement n Figure 1 Identifying areas of need: Figure 2 Patient and Public Involvement Potential for increased features to impact production schedule, product cost, profit, complexity, and adoption Figure 2 Potential for increased features to impact production schedule, product cost, profit, complexity, and adoption. EWMA Journal 2015 vol 15 no 1 37 “How do you make innovation possible? With a need that launches an idea.” One of the core strategies in this process is Patient Led Innovation (PLI), which involves: n Transforming patient-identified needs into innovative medical devices and/or services. n Innovating existing products and services to meet the needs of patients and carers. n Speeding up the development process. n Providing patient feedback and regular interactions with designers, engineers, industry healthcare profes sionals, and researchers. This is achieved by engaging with patients throughout an innovation-led design process (Fig. 1). However, several challenges remain. A proper way to engage with patients to identify need must be implemented. Furthermore, the conversion from product “push” to need-initiated “pull” needs to be developed. End-user feedback during the design phase has the potential to improve effectiveness but may also impact product cost and cost effectiveness when additional features and functionality are introduced (Fig. 2). When looking at innovation in wound care products, Moues et al.10 asked if we, the healthcare professionals, are one of the barriers to innovation. They commented that although a greater understanding of wound biology and technological advances have led to numerous improvements in wound care in the last two decades, the choice of therapy still largely depends on high-quality marketing, expert opinion, and intuition, rather than scientific evidence. They state that many healthcare professionals continue to treat and dress wounds according to age-old practices, despite the fact that new research shows that this may not be the best treatment modality for the patient. In the UK Chief Executive’s report by Sir David Nicholson for the NHS in England, Sir David Nicholson recognised, in his forward to Innovation Health and Wealth (2011), the need for innovation. Paraphrasing some of his comments: “Our ambition must be for an NHS defined by its commitment to innovation, demonstrated both in its support for research and its success in the rapid adoption and diffusion of the best, transformative, most innovative ideas, products, services, and clinical practice.” “Now and for the foreseeable future, we must meet health demands from within our current real terms funding while at the same time improving quality ……. This means that simply doing more of what we have always done is no longer an option. We need to do things differently. We need to radically transform the way we deliver services …….. Innovation is the way – the only way – we can meet these challenges. Innovation must become core business for us all.” References 1. Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research-”Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap. JAMA 2007;297(4):403-6. 2. KNAW Evaluation of new technology in health care. In need of guidance for relevant evidence. 2014, Amsterdam, KNAW. 3. Yera-Alos IB, Alonso-Carbonell L, Valenzuela-Silva CM, Tuero-Iglesias AD, Moreira-Martinez M, Marrero-Rodriguez I, et al. Active post-marketing surveillance of the intralesional administration of human recombinant epidermal growth factor in diabetic foot ulcers. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2013;14:44. 38 4. Clark M, Black J, Alves P, Brindle C, Call E, Dealey C, et al. Systematic review of the use of prophylactic dressings in the prevention of pressure ulcers. Int Wound J 2014;11(5):460-71. 5. Weller C, McNeil J. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines can improve wound care. J Wound Care 2010;19(8):347-53. 6. Kidholm K, Ekeland AG, Jensen LK, Rasmussen J, Pedersen CD, Bowes A, et al. A model for assessment of telemedicine applications: mast. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012;28(1):44-51. 7. Greenhalgh T. Whole System Demonstrator trial: policy, politics, and publication ethics. BMJ 2012;345:e5280; author reply e305. 8. Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernandez JL, Beecham J, Hirani SP, Cartwright M, et al. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013;346:f1035. 9. Vowden P. New wound care HTC launches. J Tissue Viability 2013;22(1):19-20. 10. Moues CM, Heule F, Legerstee R, Hovius SE. Five millennia of wound care products--what is new? A literature review. Ostomy Wound Manag 2009;55(3):16-22. EWMA Journal 2015 vol 15 no 1
© Copyright 2024