Featured Posts
- Urgent Hospital Readmissions are Avoidable in Nearly One out of Five Cases
- Medical Malpractice Risk Perception at Odds with the Reality
- Patients Need to Act Promptly in a Medical Mapractice Case
- Long-Term Care and Nursing Home Legislation Mandates Health Care and Prohibits Neglect and Abuse
- Recent Study Finds Doctors Unrevealing About Treatment Options
- Higher Standards in Hospital Policies
- Whither Medical Malpractice Compensation
-
Recent Posts
- Chronic Pain Injury Compensation
- Patient Ombudsman of Ontario A New Complaint Process
- Recent Medical Malpractice Case Shows What Can Happen When You Don’t Have A Lawyer
- Medical Malpractice Law Firms Owe a Duty of Loyalty
- Misdiagnosis of Cancer Cases Amount to 1 in 10 Settlements
- Medical Error Caused by Prevalent and Pervasive Surgeon Fatigue
- Medical Malpractice Claims Studied for Litigation Rate
- Rate of Prescribing Errors in General Practice Revealed
- Pathology Errors Continue at Windsor Hospitals
- Misdiagnosed Patient
- Consequences of Bariatric Surgery Malpractice
- Measures of Hospital Safety are Incomplete
- Wrong Level Spine Surgery
- Medical Negligence Claims Shown to Improve Patient Safety
- Nine Types of Pharmacist Negligence
- Twelve Hospital Negligence Errors
- A Survival Guide to Obstetrical Malpractice for 2012 at the Mount Sinai Hospital
- Failure to Diagnose Cancer Cases Explained
- Urgent Hospital Readmissions are Avoidable in Nearly One out of Five Cases
- Medical Malpractice Risk Perception at Odds with the Reality
- Teaching Medical Malpractice Advocacy at the University of Toronto
- Medical Device Approval Process Is Defective
- Medical Errors Continue to Harm Patients According to a New Study
- Urological Medical Malpractice
- Lung Cancer and Medical Malpractice
- Wrong Site Surgery Increases After the Introduction of the Universal Protocol
- Practical Car Accident Tips
- Patients Need to Act Promptly in a Medical Mapractice Case
- Sudbury Regional Hospital Emergency Department Performance Worsening
- Long-Term Care and Nursing Home Legislation Mandates Health Care and Prohibits Neglect and Abuse
- Surgeons and Referring Physicians are Responsible for Wrong Site and Patient Procedures
- Recent Study Finds Doctors Unrevealing About Treatment Options
- Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Require Expert Opinion Evidence before Trial
- Gastric Banding Concerns for Teenagers
- Cataracts Lead to Diagnostic Errors
- Drug Side Effect Reporting
- The Elderly Continue to be at Risk from Anti-Psychotic Medication
- Champix Safety Brought into Question
- Surgeons Can Do More to Reduce the Risk of Infection
- Never Events Responsible for Every Sixth Claim
- Chelation Study Suspended
- Joint Commission Alert: Prevent Blood Thinner Deaths and Overdoses: Anticoagulant therapy linked to high rate of errors
- Antibiotic use in pregnancy linked to cerebral palsy
- Canada’s health care fares poorly when compared to Western Europe
- The Vulnerable Hurt by Caps on Medical Malpractice Claims
- Vaccine Risk Declarations and Nurses
- Loss of Chance in the Medical Case Alive in Massachusetts
- Higher Standards in Hospital Policies
- Drug Safety
- Promotion of Patient’s Rights of Regulatory Concern
Ways To Connect
Categories
Medical Device Approval Process Is Defective
The Institute of Medicine released a study on Friday July 29 2011 concluding that the regulatory framework in the U.S. for the fast track approval and release of moderate risk medical devices into the market is itself flawed and fails to offer assurances of safety for patients.The IOM study committee made 3 important findings:
1. the Food and Drug Administration has a broad array of tools available to address safety concerns in the postmarket period but that the agency does not use these tools extensively.
2. the existing regulatory process generally is not intended to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical devices and, furthermore, cannot be transformed into a premarket evaluation of safety and effectiveness.
3. that a number of safety issues arose on account of the lack of clarity in the use of the phrases intended use and indications for use.
The committee concluded that the framework not only lacks the legal basis to be a reliable premarket screen of the safety and effectiveness of moderate-risk Class II devices but that it cannot be transformed into one. A new framework that uses both premarket clearance and improved postmarket surveillance of device performance to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of Class II devices throughout the duration of their use should be developed. A comprehensive strategy should be developed and implemented to collect, analyze, and act on information about devices’ performance after clearance.
In Canada our federal regulations governing the introduction and approval of medical devices were last revised in 1998. We are seeing a lot of problems with certain medical devices such as metal hip implants and pelvic surgical meshes that have been released in both countries. We are currently pursuing a number of cases involving these devices and continue to accept cases for review. If you have a problem with an implanted medical device don’t hesitate to contact us. Additional information can be found on our medical device litigation page.