ATTACHMENT C
Summary of the RR Survey used by FDA in past 3 years:
CDRH:
Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT): Special Study Summary |
|
Special Study Summary
Survey Topic: Negative Pressure Wound
Therapy (NPWT)
Year Conducted: 2009-2010
Reference OMB No.
0910-0500
Background
The effort was to
learn about device issues faced by professional home care providers,
as well as those issues potentially encountered by lay caregivers who
use NPWT in the home setting or in other non-hospital environments.
While the FDA has received reports of problems with the use of NPWT,
feedback from providers can help to promote a better understanding of
why these adverse events occur and also inform FDA if other types of
events have occurred.
Participants were recruited from the
Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun) facilities and from
professional organizations that represent home care providers or
advocate on behalf of wound care patients. Instruments included: a
Web survey questionnaire; a semi-structured questionnaire for
telephone interviews; and a self-administration questionnaire (SAQ).
Three-hundred and forty two respondents completed the Web survey
questionnaire, which ran for two months. Fifteen one-hour telephone
interviews were conducted with seventeen participants using the
semi-structured questionnaire; five participants completed the SAQ.
Questions were based on the following topics: Device Performance and
Experience, Prescription and Discharge Planning, Training and
Labeling, Issues Associated with Dressings, Patient Outcome.
Summary
The most common NPWT systems used by respondents include
the KCI Wound V.A.C.1 product line, mainly the ActiV.A.C.
and V.A.C. Freedom2. Other commonly used systems were the
Smith and Nephew (formerly Blue Sky) models.
A model
mentioned often by the phone/SAQ respondents was the ConvaTec
Engenex. Phone /SAQ respondents were more likely to indicate
complications, notably bleeding, infection, pain, retained foam and
tissue adherence, whereas Web respondents primarily cited infection
and bleeding issues.
According to phone/SAQ respondents,
prescription (patient selection, wound type, length of use),
discharge planning and training tend to vary as a function of the
facility type (hospital, outpatient clinic, Home Health Agency
[HHA])3. These respondents felt that issues arise when
there is a poor transition from the hospital to home and when the
devices are not initially ordered, prescribed, set up or applied by a
certified wound specialist or an experienced professional. Other
problems were attributed to the prescriber’s lack of specific
education about wound management therapy.
Respondents
indicated that lay caregivers and patients are largely trained on the
meaning of alarms, how to troubleshoot, how to change drainage
canisters, how to identify an emergency and what to do in an
emergency situation. Respondents were generally happy with the
lay-caregiver/patient educational materials, training and support
provided by the manufacturer. Although most Web respondents thought
all or some of these device labels and instructions were written for
a lay audience, nearly two-thirds indicated they observed challenges
with caregivers’ and patients’ ability to follow device
instructions. Of those who observed challenges, the majority
attributed them to patients’ or caregivers’
distractibility, whether because of their illness, altered
consciousness, or other medical situation. A few phone/SAQ
respondents suggested condensing the materials for the patient or to
write them at a 5th or 6th grade reading level. Some had even written
their own instructions to make them more understandable to the
patient.
Respondents stated patients or lay caregivers
should not be administering the therapy because they aren’t
trained to understand the complexities and intricacies of wound care,
and also because clinical professionals are needed to monitor and
assess the wound in addition to changing the dressing.
Dressings
were changed often, 2-3x per week, as indicated in the instructions.
However, phone respondents stated that problems can arise when the
dressing is changed too often, or not frequently enough.
Overall,
respondents felt that there is a definite benefit to NPWT therapy,
regardless of the care setting and that it is a safe therapy when
prescribed and administered appropriately. Safety and effectiveness
in neonatal and pediatric patients has not been determined at this
time, necessitating future study – a recommendation provided by
phone respondents. Users generally are happy with the systems they
use and the company support they and their patients
receive.
Respondents said there should be more prescriber
education about when therapy can and should be used and, equally
important, when it should be stopped. Some expressed the opinion that
NPWT is overprescribed mainly because of aggressive marketing
tactics. Phone/SAQ respondents, especially directors of wound care
centers, said that home care providers need to be more experienced
when it comes to administering wound care and changing dressings.
Opportunities to gain more experience and expertise should be
afforded to those who provide care. They also felt there needs to be
more consistent patient and wound monitoring, especially in the home
setting.
~~~~~~~~~
Special Studies and Surveys are
two of many tools the Agency is using to evaluate the public health
impact of the potential problems associated with the use of medical
devices. These surveys are qualitative in nature and not quantitative
and they do not reflect a statistical sample – only a
convenience sample.
Additionally, FDA continues to receive adverse event reports from
its Medical Device Reporting program. FDA will also continue to make
use of the literature and other published information. FDA
scientific, medical, nursing and engineering staff are made aware of
the survey results as needed. If FDA believes there is a significant
risk of adverse events as noted from the survey, it will combine
those results with data gained from the other sources. FDA will work
with the manufacturers and health care professional organizations to
make important information known to the clinical community.
Additionally, FDA continues to work with manufacturers to ensure the
development, testing and promulgation of methods for reducing the
risk associated with these devices and to minimize the complications
from adverse events that may occur in the course of normal usage. If
the results of any survey raise serious concerns about the safety of
these devices, FDA may convene an Ad Hoc group of clinical and
manufacturing representatives to discuss further actions.
~~~~~~~~~
1 Vacuum
Assisted Closure (V.A.C.)
2 Note:
of all the respondents surveyed, KCI was the most common system used
and is why majority of the findings refer to this particular
manufacturer’s product line.
3
Web respondents were not asked about discharge planning because
respondents are primarily home care providers, who provide patient
care regardless of how the therapy migrates into the home.
File Type | application/msword |
File Title | ATTACHMENT C |
Author | marilyn flack |
Last Modified By | gittlesond |
File Modified | 2011-05-24 |
File Created | 2011-05-24 |