Device reps in theatre: blurred boundaries or regulatory gaps?

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Bernadette Richards, Susannah Sage Jacobson, Brette Blakely, Jane Johnson
{"title":"Device reps in theatre: blurred boundaries or regulatory gaps?","authors":"Bernadette Richards, Susannah Sage Jacobson, Brette Blakely, Jane Johnson","doi":"10.1007/s40592-025-00252-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There has been a shift of dynamic in the relationship between technology and healthcare, with technological advancements progressively driving change in the delivery of care and, at times, causing disruption to the traditional doctor/patient partnership. This shift is significant in the context of medical devices. Increasingly complex devices are being introduced which require a level of technical expertise outside of the scope of the traditional training of doctors, with this knowledge gap progressively filled by medical device representatives (MDRs), a role that began as devoted to sales and has now expanded to that of adviser and trainer. This change in role represents a blurring of lines between sales and support and has potentially flourished within a regulatory gap. This paper addresses the challenge of the evolving relationship between MDRs, surgeons and patients and is based on the findings of a broader project \"Support or Sales? Medical device representatives in Australian hospitals\". It provides an overview of the outcomes of a series of interviews with stakeholders highlighting their perceptions and experiences at this point of intersection between care and sales. It then examines the existing regulatory framework and considers whether there is a real or perceived regulatory gap. This analysis of current regulatory measures in areas such as hospital safety, privacy and professional regulation and conflicts of interests, leads to a conclusion that the evolving relationship between MDRs and surgeons has not taken place in a regulatory vacuum and sufficient frameworks are in place to protect the public. However, they rely heavily on translation into local policies and concurrent adaptations to best practice behaviour which does appear to be lagging, resulting in insufficient transparency and recognition of emerging contexts requiring novel applications. This lag could threaten patient safety and patient trust in the healthcare system.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-025-00252-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been a shift of dynamic in the relationship between technology and healthcare, with technological advancements progressively driving change in the delivery of care and, at times, causing disruption to the traditional doctor/patient partnership. This shift is significant in the context of medical devices. Increasingly complex devices are being introduced which require a level of technical expertise outside of the scope of the traditional training of doctors, with this knowledge gap progressively filled by medical device representatives (MDRs), a role that began as devoted to sales and has now expanded to that of adviser and trainer. This change in role represents a blurring of lines between sales and support and has potentially flourished within a regulatory gap. This paper addresses the challenge of the evolving relationship between MDRs, surgeons and patients and is based on the findings of a broader project "Support or Sales? Medical device representatives in Australian hospitals". It provides an overview of the outcomes of a series of interviews with stakeholders highlighting their perceptions and experiences at this point of intersection between care and sales. It then examines the existing regulatory framework and considers whether there is a real or perceived regulatory gap. This analysis of current regulatory measures in areas such as hospital safety, privacy and professional regulation and conflicts of interests, leads to a conclusion that the evolving relationship between MDRs and surgeons has not taken place in a regulatory vacuum and sufficient frameworks are in place to protect the public. However, they rely heavily on translation into local policies and concurrent adaptations to best practice behaviour which does appear to be lagging, resulting in insufficient transparency and recognition of emerging contexts requiring novel applications. This lag could threaten patient safety and patient trust in the healthcare system.

影院中的设备代表:界限模糊还是监管空白?
技术与医疗保健之间的关系发生了动态变化,技术进步逐渐推动了医疗服务的变革,有时还会破坏传统的医生/病人伙伴关系。这种转变在医疗设备领域意义重大。越来越复杂的设备正在引入,这需要医生传统培训范围之外的技术专门知识水平,这一知识差距逐渐被医疗设备代表(mdr)填补,这一角色最初致力于销售,现在已扩展为顾问和培训师。这种角色的转变模糊了销售和支持之间的界限,并可能在监管空白中蓬勃发展。本文解决了mdr、外科医生和患者之间不断发展的关系的挑战,并基于一个更广泛的项目“支持还是销售?”澳大利亚医院的医疗器械代表”。它概述了与利益相关者进行的一系列访谈的结果,突出了他们在护理和销售之间的交叉点上的看法和经验。然后,它检查现有的监管框架,并考虑是否存在真正的或感知的监管差距。对医院安全、隐私和专业监管以及利益冲突等领域的现行监管措施进行分析后得出的结论是,mdr和外科医生之间不断演变的关系不是在监管真空中发生的,而且有足够的框架来保护公众。然而,它们在很大程度上依赖于转化为当地政策和同时适应最佳实践行为,这似乎是滞后的,导致缺乏透明度和对需要新应用的新兴环境的认识。这种滞后可能会威胁到患者安全和患者对医疗保健系统的信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信