Responses

other Versions

PDF

Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]
Publication Date - String

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Reporting of adverse medical device events: From both sides of the Atlantic.
    • alain braillon, senior consultant University Hospital, 80000 Amiens, France

    Gagliardi and her Canadian colleagues must be commended for calling a spade a spade: “there may be little point in solely educating or incentivising individual physicians to report adverse medical device events unless environmental conditions are conducive to doing so”.(1) “Environmental conditions” being “healthcare system capacity and industry responsiveness”.(1) The French state of affairs illustrates the latter is not about unresponsiveness but deliberate obstructions.

    First, in March 2017, after serial warning letters, the French regulatory agency required withdrawal of YSY Medical’s medical devices within a 6 months delay as devices have been marketed without CE marking (Conformité Européenne _European Conformity, in 1985 France was a leader in the Union_ which is about basic safety standards (eg. no explosion, no electrocution …). YSY Medical challenged the decision before a regional administrative court which: a) considered the topic was in its jurisdiction; b) issued an emergency ruling to suspend the Agency’s decision. The Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest court, confirmed the ruling in 2018.(2)

    Second, after a suit by the Snitem (National Union of Medical Technologies Industries) and Medtech (an association of 40 companies), the Conseil d’Etat just cancelled a decree (#1716. 13 Dec 2016) requiring a summary of product characteristics for class III and implantable devices.

    However, France is improving. In 2009, the Agency’s director wrote “...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    AB is an expert for several taskforces at the French regulatory agency (Agence Nationale de Sécurité des Médicaments et des produits de santé), none related to the topic