EBME
Improving asset management strategies
Dr John Sandham CEng offers an insight into achieving a best practice model for medical devices management policy. He warns that poor equipment procurement and management impacts on clinical outcomes for patients and organisational efficiencies.
In 2014, I spoke at the National EBME Conference and Exhibition1
about my
doctoral research thesis titled ‘Achieving a Best Practice Model for Medical Devices Management Policy’, available from the Middlesex University Research Repository.2 This was the culmination of four years of research, where the main argument was that strategic planning for procurement of medical devices plays a vital part in the decisions that need to be made by the executives within any healthcare organisation, NHS or private, when it comes to operational and business management. That’s obvious isn’t it? Apparently, it is not obvious because, time after time, I go into healthcare organisations that are struggling with medical devices management and procurement planning. The complexity and size of the life sciences industry in the UK is often underestimated, and is much larger than many people realise. This quickly evolving and growing sector makes it extremely challenging for healthcare organisations to keep up to date with the latest products. According to Government figures, the life sciences industry employs 248,400 people in the UK. Approximately 127,400 (51% of the industry total) are employed in the
Stakeholder Engagement
Business Planning
Successful Strategy
Figure 1: Key factors leading to best practice in medical devices management
Med Tech sector comprising the Core Med Tech and the Service and Supply segments. The Core Med Tech sector is the largest in the industry by employment and number of businesses, with a total employment of 97,600 (39% of the industry) and 2,730 businesses (45% of the industry).3
mainly deal with the Core Med Tech sector in terms of the products and services they buy. When looking at the Core Med Tech companies in the UK, one can easily see
I can go on the internet and read many NHS Trust ‘strategic plans’ which talk about using technology to improve outcomes for patients, but reading between the lines, it is clear to me that many of these ‘plans’ are superficial and unlikely to deliver their goals within the time frame set, because there are gaping holes around technology procurement and project management.
NOVEMBER 2020 Hospitals
that dealing with this business sector is fraught with difficulty due to its size, complexity, and the investment required by healthcare organisations to keep up to date with the latest technologies and services. In healthcare organisations, choosing what to buy, and who to buy from, is a difficult process in itself. ‘Core Med Tech’ includes all businesses whose primary business involves developing and producing Med Tech products (ranging from single-use consumables to complex hospital equipment, including digital health products). In the UK, there are 25,649 people across 448 businesses employed in the manufacture of medical equipment and supplies with an annual turnover of £4,675 Million.4
Considering this
complexity, it makes it very challenging for healthcare executives to create a medium to long term plan. The plan requires the input of many different stakeholders from different levels within the organisation, and it must be financially and operationally sustainable. This strategic plan must have executive ownership to ensure that ongoing operational business plans are aligned
WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM l 31
▲
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
