Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Toward Materiovigilance Among the Health Care Workers in Mumbai: A Questionnaire-Based Study

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 9 | Issue 2 |  July-December 2024 | page: 83-87 | Sachin Kale, Deepak Langade, Vaishali Thakare, Anant Patil, Sonali Das, Arvind Vatkar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/jcorth.2024.v09i02.676

Submitted Date: 10 Oct 2024, Review Date: 28 Oct 2024, Accepted Date: 15 Nov 2024 & Published Date: 10 Dec 2024

Author: Sachin Kale [1], Deepak Langade [2], Vaishali Thakare [2], Anant Patil [2], Sonali Das [1], Arvind Vatkar [3]

[1] Department of Orthoaedics, Dr. DY Patil Medical College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

[2] Department of Pharmacology, Dr. DY Patil Medical College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

[3] Department of Orthopaedics, MGM Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Sonali Das,

Department of Orthopaedics, Dr. DY Patil Medical College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Email- drsonalidas@hotmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Materiovigilance is an organized method for locating, obtaining, recording, and evaluating any unfavorable occurrences associated with medical devices to protect a patient’s health by preventing recurrences. Recent advancements in science and technology have led to a significant expansion in the role of medical devices in the healthcare delivery system. This questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted among physicians and nurses in a teaching hospital that offers tertiary care and is part of the MvPI MDAE reporting system.

Case report: Among the participants, the worst performers were junior nurses, with 66.7% unaware of the term materiovigilance itself, and the best performers were professors, at 73.5%. Participants self-rated their knowledge, and 31.0% considered it average regarding the subject. However, only 53% of respondents were aware of MvPI systems in their institution, and 60.5% were aware of the reporting process.

Conclusion: This study shows that our tertiary care teaching institute’s medical practitioners lack sufficient materiovigilance knowledge. A campaign of ongoing materiovigilance awareness among healthcare practitioners and nurses, however, would enhance their understanding and inspire them to report MDAEs.

Keywords: Materiovigilance, healthcare, awareness, questionnaire.

References

1. Meher BR. Materiovigilance: An Indian perspective. Perspect Clin Res 2018;9:175-8.
2. Jefferys DB. The regulation of medical devices and the role of the medical devices agency. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001;52:229-35.
3. Global Harmonization Task Force (Revision of GHTF/SG1/N29:2005). Definition of the Terms ‘Medical Device’ and ‘In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Medical Device’. Study Group 1 of the Global Harmonization Task Force Endorsed. GHTF/SG1/N071:2012. The Global Harmonization Task Force; 2012. Available from: https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/docs/ghtf/final/sg1/technical-docs/ghtf-sg1-n071-2012-definition-of-terms-120516.pdf#search=
4. Thomas AN, Galvin I. Patient safety incidents associated with equipment in critical care: A review of reports to the UK National Patient Safety Agency. Anaesthesia 2008;63:1193-7.
5. Maisel WH. Medical device regulation: An introduction for the practicing physician. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:296-302.
6. Shukla S, Gupta M, Pandit S, Thomson M, Shivhare A, Kalaiselvan V, et al. Implementation of adverse event reporting for medical devices, India. Bull World Health Organ 2020;98:206-11.
7. Feigal DW, Gardner SN, McClellan M. Ensuring safe and effective medical devices. N Engl J Med 2003;348:191-2.
8. Mazeau V, Grenier-Sennelier C, Paturel DX, Mokhtari M, Vidal-Trecan G. Telephone survey of hospital staff knowledge of medical device surveillance in a Paris hospital. Eval Health Prof 2004;27:398-409.
9. Alsohime F, Temsah MH, Hasan G, Al-Eyadhy A, Gulman S, Issa H, et al. Reporting adverse events related to medical devices: A single center experience from a tertiary academic hospital. PLoS One 2019;14:e0224233.
10. Nabi N, Rehman S. A study on knowledge, attitude and practices among healthcare professionals regarding the adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Bangladesh J Med Sci 2022;21:648-58.
11. Mirel S, Colobatiu L, Fasniuc E, Boboia A, Gherman C, Mirel V. Materiovigilance and Medical Devices. In: International Conference on Advancements of Medicine and Health Care through Technology. Cluj-Napoca, Romania; 2019. p. 101-6. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-07653-9_21
12. Gagliardi AR, Ducey A, Lehoux P, Turgeon T, Ross S, Trbovich P, et al. Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: Qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices. BMJ Qual Saf 2018;27:190-8.
13. Teow N, Siegel SJ. FDA regulation of medical devices and medical device reporting. Pharm Regul Aff 2013;2:110.
14. Hefflin BJ, Gross TP, Schroeder TJ. Estimates of medical device–associated adverse events from emergency departments. Am J Prev Med 2004;27:246-53.
15. Ventola CL. Social media and health care professionals: Benefits, risks, and best practices. P T 2014;39:491-520.
16. Shrestha S, Palaian S, Shrestha B, Santosh K, Khanal S. The potential role of social media in pharmacovigilance in Nepal: Glimpse from a resource-limited setting. J Clin Diagn Res 2019;13:FE4-7.
17. Coyle YM, Mercer SQ, Murphy-Cullen CL, Schneider GW, Hynan LS. Effectiveness of a graduate medical education program for improving medical event reporting attitude and behavior. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:383-8.

How to Cite this article: Kale S, Langade D, Thakare V, Patil A, Das S, Vatkar AJ. Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Toward Materio-vigilance among the Health Care Workers in Mumbai: A Questionnaire Based Study. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics July-December 2024;9(2):83-87.

 (Article Text HTML)       (Download PDF)