Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Yoon C, Nam KC, Lee YK, Kang Y, Choi SJ, Shin HM, et al.
    J Korean Med Sci, 2019 Oct 14;34(39):e255.
    PMID: 31602825 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e255
    BACKGROUND: Medical device adverse event reporting is an essential activity for mitigating device-related risks. Reporting of adverse events can be done by anyone like healthcare workers, patients, and others. However, for an individual to determine the reporting, he or she should recognize the current situation as an adverse event. The objective of this report is to share observed individual differences in the perception of a medical device adverse event, which may affect the judgment and the reporting of adverse events.

    METHODS: We trained twenty-three participants from twelve Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies about international guidelines for medical device vigilance. We developed and used six virtual cases and six questions. We divided participants into six groups and compared their opinions. We also surveyed the country's opinion to investigate the beginning point of 'patient use'. The phases of 'patient use' are divided into: 1) inspecting, 2) preparing, and 3) applying medical device.

    RESULTS: As for the question on the beginning point of 'patient use,' 28.6%, 35.7%, and 35.7% of participants provided answers regarding the first, second, and third phases, respectively. In training for applying international guidelines to virtual cases, only one of the six questions reached a consensus between the two groups in all six virtual cases. For the other five questions, different judgments were given in at least two groups.

    CONCLUSION: From training courses using virtual cases, we found that there was no consensus on 'patient use' point of view of medical devices. There was a significant difference in applying definitions of adverse events written in guidelines regarding the medical device associated incidents. Our results point out that international harmonization effort is needed not only to harmonize differences in regulations between countries but also to overcome diversity in perspectives existing at the site of medical device use.

  2. Yao K, Uedo N, Muto M, Ishikawa H, Cardona HJ, Filho ECC, et al.
    EBioMedicine, 2016 Jul;9:140-147.
    PMID: 27333048 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.05.016
    BACKGROUND: In many countries, gastric cancer is not diagnosed until an advanced stage. An Internet-based e-learning system to improve the ability of endoscopists to diagnose gastric cancer at an early stage was developed and was evaluated for its effectiveness.

    METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. After receiving a pre-test, participants were randomly allocated to either an e-learning or non-e-learning group. Only those in the e-learning group gained access to the e-learning system. Two months after the pre-test, both groups received a post-test. The primary endpoint was the difference between the two groups regarding the rate of improvement of their test results.

    FINDINGS: 515 endoscopists from 35 countries were assessed for eligibility, and 332 were enrolled in the study, with 166 allocated to each group. Of these, 151 participants in the e-learning group and 144 in the non-e-learning group were included in the analysis. The mean improvement rate (standard deviation) in the e-learning and non-e-learning groups was 1·24 (0·26) and 1·00 (0·16), respectively (P<0·001).

    INTERPRETATION: This global study clearly demonstrated the efficacy of an e-learning system to expand knowledge and provide invaluable experience regarding the endoscopic detection of early gastric cancer (R000012039).

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links