Methodology for the replacement of high-tech medical equipment, applying economic evaluation and business process analysis

Authors

  • Norma Patricia Navor-Galeana Departamento de Evaluación Tecnológica. Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación «Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra».
  • Carlos Pineda Dirección General. Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación «Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra».
  • Hugo Sandoval Dirección General. Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación «Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra».
  • Josefina Gutiérrez-Martínez Dirección de Investigación. Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación «Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra».

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35366/107509

Keywords:

business process modeling notation, cost-effectiveness analysis, health economics, health technology assessments, health technology management, medical devices

Abstract

Introduction: decision-making about when MEs replacement should take place is a traditional hospital challenge due to its high cost for health institutions and the risk it could represent in any existing medical care practice or procedure. The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) for MEs allows prioritizing its replacement in a hospital. Most MEs replacement evaluations focus solely on cost analyses;
however, these evaluations do not consider the full role that MEs play in the healthcare processes in this sense, the investment cost of the equipment and other critical factors to evaluate the process, costs and productivity must be considered either. Objective: this paper proposes a methodology to support the decision to replace or not MEs, based on economic evaluation and business process analysis. Material and methods: cost-effectiveness, intermediate effectiveness, and process workflow analysis are applied. The best MEs alternative is identified through a decision-tree and time indexes, productivity and performance indicators. This methodology was tested by evaluating, as a case study, whether it is necessary to replace the sterilizers/washing machine that are in the last stage of their lifecycle, operating in our Central Sterilization Units. Results: the methodology presented in this paper has a high potential to detect delays, measure efficiency, productivity and costs of the processes, and even, based on the workflow analysis, to be able to improve the processes where MEs are operating. Conclusion: furthermore, HTA- ased MEs replacement methodology allows to generate cost-effective information for decision-making at the management level.

References

International Network Agencies for Health Technology

Assessment. HTA Glossary.net. 2012. Available in:

http://htaglossary.net/health+technology+assessment

Fiedler BA, David Y. Reframing product life cycle for

medical devices. In: Managing medical devices with

a regulatory framework. Amsterdam; Cambridge, MA:

Elsevier 2017. pp. 3-16.

World Health Organization. Health Topics.2022.

Available in: https://www.who.int/teams/health-productpolicy-and-standards/assistive-and-medical-technology/

medical-devices

Ayala R, Arellanes EE, Moreno E. Gestión de equipo

médico. Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en

Salud. 2020.

Ciani O, Wilcher B, Van Giessen A, Taylor RS. Linking

the regulatory and reimbursement processes for medical

devices: the need for integrated assessments. Health

Economics. 2017; 26 (Suppl. 1): 13-29.

Polisena J, Castaldo R, Ciani O, Federici C, Borsci

S, Ritrovato M et al. Health technology assessment

methods guidelines for medical devices: how can we

address the gaps? the International Federation of

Medical and Biological Engineering Perspective. Int J

Tech Assess Health Care. 2018; 34 (3): 276-289.

Tarricone R, Torbica A, Drummond M, MEDTECHTA

Project Group. Key recommendations from the

MedtecHTA project. Health Economics 2017; 26 (Suppl.

:145-152.

Blüher M, Saunders SJ, Mittard V, Torrejon R, Davis JA,

Saunders R. Critical review of European health-economic

guidelines for the health technology assessment of

medical devices. Front Med. 2019; (6): 278.

Drummond MF, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Economic

evaluation of medical devices. In: Hamilton, J.H., (ed.)

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and

Finance. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2018.

Tarricone R, Callea G, Ogorevc M, Prevolnik V.

Improving the methods for the economic evaluation of

medical devices. Health Economics. 2017; 26 (Suppl.

: 70-92.

Tarricone R, Torbica A, Drummond M F. Challenges

in the assessment of medical devices: the MedtecHTA

project. Health Economics. 2017; 26 (Suppl. 1): 5-12.

Kingkaew P, Teerawattananon Y. The economic

evaluation of medical devices: challenges. J Med Assoc

Thai. 2014; 97 (Suppl 5): S102-107.

Bektemur G, Muzoglu N, Ali-Arici M, Kaya-Karaaslan

M. Cost analysis of medical device spare parts. Pak J

Med Sci. 2018; 34 (2): 472-477.

Sprague S, Quigley L, Adili A, Bhandari M. Understanding

cost effectiveness: money matters? J Long Term Eff Med

Implants. 2007; 17 (2): 145-152.

Liao HY, Cade W, Behdad S. Markov chain optimization of

repair and replacement decisions of medical equipment.

Resour, Conserv Recycling. 2021; 171: 105609.

Fennigkoh L. A medical equipment replacement model.

J Clin Eng. 1992; 17 (1): 43-47.

Taylor K, Jackson S. A medical equipment replacement

score system. J Clin Eng. 2005; 30 (1): 37-41.

Mora-García T, Piña-Quintero F, Ortiz-Posadas

M. Medical Equipment Replacement Prioritization

Indicator Using Multi-criteria Decision Analysis.

In: Hernández HY, Milián NV, Ruiz SJ. Progress

in Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition.

IWAIPR 2018.

Tobey J. Medical equipment replacement planning. In:

Clinical Engineering Handbook, Florence Italy, Elsevier,

; pp. 227-235.

Hussien HW. Optimized medical equipment replacement

planning. Addis Ababa University. Center of Biomedical

Engineering, Etiopía, 2021.

Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público. Acuerdo por

el que se modifican los lineamientos para el registro en

la cartera de programas y proyectos de inversión. Diario

Oficial de la Federación. 2021.

Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación. Políticas, bases y

lineamientos generales para la recepción, aceptación,

registro y control de las donaciones en especie que

reciba el Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación. 2009.

Kristensen F, Sigmund H. Health Technology

Assessment Handbook. Danish Centre for Health

Technology Assessment, Denmark, 2007.

Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL,

Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of

health care programmes, Oxford university press. 2015.

Tomaskova H, Maresova P, Penhaker M, Augustynek

M, Klimova B, Fadeyi O, Kuca K. The business process

model and notation of open innovation: the process of

developing medical instrument. J Open Innov Tech

Market Complexity. 2019; 5 (4): 101.

BizAgi, BizAgi Process Modeler Version 3.8.0.206.

Available in: http://www.top4download.com/

bizagi-process-modeler/crhbwqyd.html

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI).

Índice Nacional de Precios al Consumidor (INPC).

Available in: http://www.inegi.org.mx

Downloads

Published

2022-12-30

How to Cite

1.
Navor-Galeana NP, Pineda C, Sandoval H, Gutiérrez-Martínez J. Methodology for the replacement of high-tech medical equipment, applying economic evaluation and business process analysis. Invest. Discapacidad [Internet]. 2022 Dec. 30 [cited 2024 Dec. 28];8(3):91-102. Available from: https://dsm.inr.gob.mx/indiscap/index.php/INDISCAP/article/view/93

Issue

Section

Original articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.