medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2018, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

salud publica mex 2018; 60 (4)

Strategies to improve the medical device life cycle in Mexico

Lingg M, Dreser A, Durán-Arenas L, Wyss K

Language: English
References: 27
Page: 462-471
PDF size: 268.06 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective. To analyze the role of stakeholders to three alternative strategies to improve processes and practices regarding the regulation, assessment, and management of orthopaedic medical devices in Mexico. Materials and methods. The study was based on document analysis and 17 structured interviews with multiple key actors within the Mexican health system to inform a stakeholder analysis aiming at assessing the political feasibility of these strategies. Results. Central level government agencies, those with a relation to quality of care, were identified as most relevant stakeholders to influence the adaption and application of the strategies. Major barriers identified are financial and human resources, and organisational culture towards reform. Conclusion. Discussed strategies are political feasible. However, solving identified barriers is crucial to achieve changes directed to improve outputs and outcomes of medical device life cycle and positively influence the quality of health care and the health system’s performance.


REFERENCES

  1. World Health Organization. Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research [Internet]. Geneva:WHO, 2009 [cited 2016 Aug 4]. Available from: http://www.who. int/alliance-hpsr/resources/9789241563895/en/

  2. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy. Better evidence on medical devices. A Coordinating Center for a 21st Century National Medical Device Evaluation System [report in internet]. Durham: Duke University, 2016 [cited 2016 Jun 4]. Available from: https://healthpolicy.duke.edu/ better-evidence-medical-devices

  3. Das Fünfte Buch Sozialgesetzbuch – Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung – (Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 20. Dezember 1988, BGBl. I S. 2477, 2482) [statute in internet]. Germany: Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, 1988 [cited 2017 Dec 5]. Available from: https://www. gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_5/__137h.html

  4. World Health Organization. Medical devices: Managing the Mismatch: An outcome of the Priority Medical Devices project [report in internet]. Geneva:WHO, 2010 [cited 2016 Aug 4]. Available from: http://apps.who. int/iris/bitstream/10665/44407/1/9789241564045_eng.pdf

  5. International Society for Pharmaeconomics and Outcome Research [Internet]. Medical devices and diagnostics special interest groups [cited 2017 Jan 28]. ISPOR, 2017. Available from: https://www.ispor.org/sigs/Med- DevicesDiagnostics.aspx

  6. World Health Organization. Development of medical device policies, WHO Medical device technical series. Geneva: WHO, 2011 [cited 2016 Aug 2]. Available from: http://www.who.int/medical_devices/policies/en/

  7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Reviews of Health Systems. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2016. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264230491-en

  8. Gómez-Dantés O, Sesma S, Becerril V, Knaul FM, Arreola H, Frenk J. The health system of Mexico. Salud Publica Mex. 2011;53(Suppl2):s220-32.

  9. Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Perfil del sistema de servicios de salud México. Washington: OPS, 2002 [cited 2016 Oct 21]. Available from: http://www1.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2010/Perfil_Sistema_Salud- Mexico_2002.pdf

  10. Frenk J, Gonzalez-Pier E, Gómez-Dantés O, Lezana Mç, Knaul FM. Comprehensive reform to improve health system performance in Mexico. Salud Publica Mex. 2007;49(Suppl 1):s23-36.

  11. Knaul FM, Gonzalez-Pier E, Gómez-Dantés O, García-Junco D, Arreola-Ornelas H, Barraza-Llorens M, et al. The quest for universal health coverage: achieving social protection for all in Mexico. Lancet. 2012;380(9849):1259-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61068-X

  12. Cámara de diputados. Anexo XXVI. Gaceta Parlamentaria [statute in internet]. México: Cámara de diputados, 2016 [cited 26 Sep 2016]. Available from: http://sil.gobernacion.gob.mx/Archivos/Documentos/2016/04/as un_3377525_20160428_1461890047.pdf

  13. Lingg M, Wyss K, Duran-Arenas L. How does the knowledge environment shape procurement practices for orthopaedic medical devices in Mexico? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16:85 https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12911-016-0324-1

  14. Lingg M, Wyss K, Duran-Arenas L. Effects of procurement practices on quality of medical device or service received: a qualitative study comparing countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:362 https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12913-016-1610-4

  15. Lingg M, Merida-Herrera E, Wyss K, Duran-Arenas L. Attitudes of orthopaedic specialists towards effects of medical device purchasing. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(1):46-53. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0266462317000101

  16. Lingg M, Dreser A, Duran-Arenas L, Wyss K. The regulation, assessment, and management of medical devices in Mexico: How do they shape the quality of delivered healthcare? Safety in Health. 2017;3(1):4 https:// doi.org/10.1186/s40886-017-0055-8

  17. Gómez-Dantés O, Frenk J. Health technology assessment in Mexico. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 1):270-5. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0266462309090746

  18. World Health Organization. Country data - Global atlas of medical devices. [cited 2016 Aug 15]. Available from: http://www.who.int/medical_ devices/countries

  19. Ruelas E, Gómez-Dantés O, Leatherman S, Fortune T, Gay-Molina JG. Strengthening the quality agenda in health care in low- and middle-income countries: questions to consider. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24(6):553-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzs061

  20. Schmeer K. Guidelines for conducting a stakeholder analysis. Bethesda, MD: Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt Associates Inc, 1999 [cited 2017 Jan 28]. Available from: http://www.who.int/entity/management/partnerships/ overall/GuidelinesConductingStakeholderAnalysis.pdf

  21. Hyder A, Syed S, Puvanachandra P, Bloom G, Sundaram S, Mahmood S, et al. Stakeholder analysis for health research: Case studies from low- and middle-income countries. Public Health. 2010;124(3):159-66. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.puhe.2009.12.006

  22. Buse K, Dickinson C, Gilson L, Murray SF. How can the analysis of power and process in policy-making improve health outcomes? World Hosp Health Serv. 2009;45(1):4-8.

  23. Reich MR. The politics of reforming health policies. Promot Educ. 2002;9(4):138-42. Available from: https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/ uploads/sites/480/2012/10/Politics_of_reform.pdf

  24. The Joint Commission. Improving Patient and Worker Safety: Opportunities for Synergy, Collaboration and Innovation. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: The Joint Commission, 2012 [cited 07 Abr 2016]. Available from: https://www. jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/TJC-ImprovingPatientAndWorkerSafety- Monograph.pdf

  25. Coronel MR. Viene fuerte desregulación en tecnología médica. El Economista [internet]; 2017 [cited 2017 Feb 12]. Available from: http:// eleconomista.com.mx/columnas/salud-negocios/2017/02/08/viene-fuertedesregulacion- tecnologia-medica

  26. Camp RA. The Oxford Handbook of Mexican Politics. USA: Oxford University Press, 2012.

  27. Cabrero-Mendoza E. Usos y costumbres en la hechura de las políticas públicas en México. Límites de las policy sciences en contextos cultural y políticamente diferentes. Gestión y Política Pública. 2000;9(2):189-229 [cited 2017 Feb 12]. Available from: http://www.gestionypoliticapublica.cide. edu/num_anteriores/Vol.IX_No.II_2dosem/CME_Vol.9_No.II_2sem.pdf




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com