Medical Device Link.

Originally Published EMDM November 2003

INDUSTRY NEWS

Academia and industry traditionally make strange bedfellows: industry is driven by profit, while those in places of higher learning are motivated not by monetary gain, but by the quest for knowledge and personal credibility. That said, business-and-industry couplings may be a wave of the future.

The Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare (Match), is a new UK-wide centre for medical technologies. Based in university hubs in Nottingham, Uxbridge, Northern Ireland, Birmingham, Brunel University, and King’s College, London, the centre will harness academic and industry expertise to provide new methods of assessing pioneering medical technologies. Medical devices and equipment, implants, and wound-care products are on the roster. 

The five-year, £6.3 million project is jointly funded by the UK government, nongovernmental bodies, and industry. With more than 20 partners involved, Match has organized a five-pronged interrelated approach to applying its philosophy.

“The first [point] concerns the development of methods for assessing the value of healthcare technology,” says Steve Morgan, a Match member who works at the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering for the University of Nottingham (Nottingham, UK). “We will be concerned with value in very broad terms for patients, clinical staff, and manufacturers, with whom we will be working closely.”

Next, Match will tackle the early stages of product development in conjunction with manufacturers. “We aim to assess medical devices on a continual basis. Improving their performance, from conception to second- and third-generation products” is key, according to Morgan.

The third step involves developing a way to evaluate the users’ perspectives. Those who benefit from the devices will have input into comfort and quality. One strategy is to test existing products, whose efficacy and shortcomings are known, against methods developed by Match. The research will be conducted at various stages in the life cycle of a medical device, says Morgan. “The exciting aspect of this programme is the way it links compelling research to practical problems,” says Terry Young, Match’s principal investigator and a Brunel University Health Systems professor.

Interpreting research and presenting the data to industrial and regulatory bodies is the fourth project planned. The corresponding agencies will also receive recommendations and guidelines from Match’s board. 

The fifth segment will be under the coordination of the Nottingham and Ulster hubs, that will work jointly with companies that bring real concepts, products, and commercial issues to the debate. The goal is to apply and validate the research from the other projects. “It has the potential to influence a sector of our industry for the better,” says Young.

A Timely Review

What, in essence, seems like impeccable timing is the release of the Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration. The report, commissioned by the UK Treasury, examines the links between academia and industry and how they can strengthen the British economy. A summary was made public by the British government in July.

Overall, the report indicates that the UK has a “weak starting point” in business and R&D as compared with other nations, such as the United States. An acute skills gap in university technology transfer offices is another criticism made. Critics noted that a “savage indictment” of the state of business-and-industry collaboration is missing in the report, which would be a more accurate description, according to the Financial Times.

One possibility for a calmer approach to the issue is the emergence of think tanks such as Match. Under the “Benefits to the University” section, the Lambert review indicates that the benefits would include “access to challenging real-world problems and the satisfaction of seeing good ideas brought to the marketplace.” 

Morgan says that part of the Match philosophy is “the underlying theme that all those involved in healthcare delivery (e.g., industry, clinical staff, and patients and their families) may benefit if efficient and accurate means of assessing the value of medical devices exist.” In effect, sharing information contributes to a win-win situation for the patient and company involved. “If a device is effective but uncomfortable, patient feedback to industry [may lead to] the product being modified,” says Morgan. “Therefore, more patients will use it and benefit [from it], and hence more will be sold.”

The Lambert report was conducted with the aid of questionnaires that were given to research centres at universities and other places of higher learning, as well as medical device companies and business interests. The report echoes a number of recommendations designed to bolster academia-business partnerships. “A large number of respondents commented that greater movement of staff between industry and academia would be an effective way to promote knowledge transfer,” notes the report.

Match plans to take this idea one step further by involving not only the medical device industry, but governmental offices as well, to ensure a more comprehensive approach. Modes of communication will be “via the industrial partners on board plus discourse with industry, governmental, and nongovernmental bodies representing the industry and healthcare-delivery process,” says Morgan.

In addition to conferences and Web site updates, “networking among all interested parties will be an important part of the project,” adds Morgan. “Our intention is that the ideas we generate will have an effect across national boundaries, not just within the United Kingdom.” 

To learn more, contact John Crowe at the University of Nottingham by phoning +44 115 9515590 or via e-mail at john.crowe@nottingham.ac.uk. 

Laura Angela Bagnetto

Copyright ©2003 European Medical Device Manufacturer