Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 1;12(9):e057516.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057516.

Purchasing high-cost medical devices and equipment in hospitals: a systematic review

Affiliations

Purchasing high-cost medical devices and equipment in hospitals: a systematic review

Saba Hinrichs-Krapels et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To systematically review academic literature for studies on any processes, procedures, methods or approaches to purchasing high-cost medical devices and equipment within hospitals in high-income countries.

Methods: On 13 August 2020, we searched the following from inception: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, EconLit and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I via ProQuest, Embase, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in Process via Ovid SP, Google and Google Scholar, Health Management and Policy Database via Ovid SP, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, International HTA Database, NHS EED via CRD Web, Science Citation Index-Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Emerging Sources Citation Index via Web of Science, Scopus, and Zetoc conference search. Studies were included if they described the approach to purchasing (also known as procurement or acquisition) of high-cost medical devices and/or equipment conducted within hospitals in high-income countries between 2000 and 2020. Studies were screened, data extracted and results summarised in tables under themes identified.

Results: Of 9437 records, 24 were included, based in 12 different countries and covering equipment types including surgical robots, medical imaging equipment, defibrillators and orthopaedic implants. We found heterogeneity in methods and approaches; including descriptions of processes taking place within or across hospitals (n=14), out of which three reported cost savings; empirical studies in which hospital records or participant data were analysed (n=8), and evaluations or pilots of proposed purchasing processes (n=2). Studies emphasise the importance of balancing technical, financial, safety and clinical requirements for device selection through multidisciplinary involvement (especially clinical engineers and clinicians) in decision-making, and the potential of increasing evidence-based purchasing decisions using approaches such as hospital-based health technology assessments, ergonomics and device 'user trials'.

Conclusions: We highlight the need for more empirical work that evaluates purchasing approaches or interventions, and greater specificity in study reporting (eg, equipment type, evaluation outcomes) to build the evidence base required to influence policy and practice for medical equipment purchasing.

Protocol registration: This review was registered in Open Science Framework: Shokraneh F, Hinrichs-Krapels S, Chalkidou A et al. Purchasing high-cost medical equipment in hospitals in OECD countries: A systematic review. Open Science Framework 2021; doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/GTXN8. Available at: https://osf.io/gtxn8/ (accessed 12 February 2022).

Keywords: biotechnology & bioinformatics; health economics; health services administration & management; information management; organisation of health services.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of steps involved in purchasing medical devices and equipment (focus of this review in dashed lines). Items in each step taken from WHO procurement process guide.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart (adapted from Page et al. *We contacted the authors and tried interlibrary loan before giving up on retrieving the full texts. HTA, health technology assessment; OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

References

    1. De Savigny D, Adam T, eds. Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. World Health Organization, 2009.
    1. Shishkin S, Zasimova L, Liudmila Z. Adopting new medical technologies in Russian hospitals: what causes inefficiency? (qualitative study). Health Econ Policy Law 2018;13:33–49. 10.1017/S1744133116000347 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ranney ML, Griffeth V, Jha AK. Critical supply shortages—the need for ventilators and personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic. N Engl J Med 2020;382:e41. 10.1056/NEJMp2006141 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Miller FA, Young SB, Dobrow M, et al. Vulnerability of the medical product supply chain: the wake-up call of COVID-19. BMJ Qual Saf 2021;30:331–5. 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012133 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clarkson PJ, Buckle P, Coleman R, et al. Design for patient safety: a review of the effectiveness of design in the UK health service. J Eng Design 2004;15:123–40. 10.1080/09544820310001617711 - DOI

Publication types