Jeff Neukomm

Bio: Jeff Neukomm is an academic researcher from University of Toronto. The author has contributed to research in topics: Rubric & Request for proposal. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 13 citations.

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders.

Abstract: Objectives Procurement's important role in healthcare decision making has encouraged criticism and calls for greater collaboration with health technology assessment (HTA), and necessitates detailed analysis of how procurement approaches the decision task. Methods We reviewed tender documents that solicit medical technologies for patient care in Canada, focusing on request for proposal (RFP) tenders that assess quality and cost, supplemented by a census of all tender types. We extracted data to assess (i) use of group purchasing organizations (GPOs) as buyers, (ii) evaluation criteria and rubrics, and (iii) contract terms, as indicators of supplier type and market conditions. Results GPOs were dominant buyers for RFPs (54/97) and all tender types (120/226), and RFPs were the most common tender (92/226), with few price-only tenders (11/226). Evaluation criteria for quality were technical, including clinical or material specifications, as well as vendor experience and qualifications; "total cost" was frequently referenced (83/97), but inconsistently used. The most common (47/97) evaluative rubric was summed scores, or summed scores after excluding those below a mandatory minimum (22/97), with majority weight (64.1 percent, 62.9 percent) assigned to quality criteria. Where specified, expected contract lengths with successful suppliers were high (mean, 3.93 years; average renewal, 2.14 years), and most buyers (37/42) expected to award to a single supplier. Conclusions Procurement's evaluative approach is distinctive. While aiming to go beyond price in the acquisition of most medical technologies, it adopts a narrow approach to assessing quality and costs, but also attends to factors little considered by HTA, suggesting opportunities for mutual lesson learning.

Fostering Responsible Innovation in Health: An Evidence-Informed Assessment Tool for Innovation Stakeholders.

Abstract: Background Responsible innovation in health (RIH) emphasizes the importance of developing technologies that are responsive to system-level challenges and support equitable and sustainable healthcare. To help decision-makers identify whether an innovation fulfills RIH requirements, we developed and validated an evidence-informed assessment tool comprised of 4 inclusion and exclusion criteria, 9 assessment attributes and a scoring system. Methods We conducted an inter-rater reliability assessment to establish the extent to which 2 raters agree when applying the RIH Tool to a diversified sample of health innovations (n = 25). Following the Tool’s 3-step process, sources of information were collected and cross-checked to ensure their clarity and relevance. Ratings were reported independently in a spreadsheet to generate the study’s database. To measure inter-rater reliability, we used: a non-adjusted index (percent agreement), a chance-adjusted index (Gwet’s AC) and the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results of the Tool’s application to the whole sample of innovations are summarized through descriptive statistics. Results Our findings show complete agreement for the screening criteria, “almost perfect” agreement for 7 assessment attributes, “substantial” agreement for 2 attributes and “almost perfect” agreement for the RIH overall score. A large portion of the sample obtained high scores for 6 attributes (health relevance, health inequalities, responsiveness, level and intensity of care and frugality) and low scores for 3 attributes (ethical, legal, and social issues [ELSIs], inclusiveness and eco-responsibility). At the rating step, 88% of the innovations had a sufficient number of attributes documented (≥ 7/9), but the assessment was based on sources of moderate to high quality (mean score ≥ 2 points) for 36% of the sample. While “Almost all RIH features” were present for 24% of the innovations (RIH mean score between 4.1-5.0 points), “Many RIH features” were present for 52% of the sample (3.1-4.0 points) and “Few RIH features” were present for 24% of the innovations (2.1-3.0 points). Conclusion By confirming key aspects of the RIH Tool’s reliability and applicability, our study brings its development to completion. It can be jointly put into action by innovation stakeholders who want to foster innovations with greater social, economic and environmental value.

Overcoming Challenges with the Adoption of Point-of-Care Testing: From Technology Push and Clinical Needs to Value Propositions.

Abstract: Major technical challenges often prevent developers from producing new point-of-care technologies that deliver the required clinical performance in the intended settings of use. But even when devices meet clinical requirements, they can fail to be adopted and successfully implemented. Adoption barriers occur when decision makers do not understand the "value proposition" of new technologies. Current discussions of value in the context of point-of-care testing focus predominantly on the intended use and performance of the device from the manufacturer's point-of-view. However, the perspective of potential adopters in determining whether new devices provide value is also important, as is the opinion of all stakeholders who will be impacted. Incorporating value concepts into decisions made across the full development-to-adoption continuum can increase the likelihood that point-of-care testing will have the desired impact on health care delivery and patient outcomes. This article discusses how various approaches to technology development impact adoption and compares the characteristics of these approaches to emerging value concepts. It also provides an overview of value initiatives and tools that are being developed to support the evaluation of value propositions. These are presented for a range of technology adoption decision contexts, with particular applicability to point-of-care testing. Expanding the focus of research to address gaps in both the creation and evaluation of value propositions is imperative in order for value concepts to positively influence the adoption of point-of-care testing.

Automated hospital pharmacy supply chain and the evaluation of organisational impacts and costs

Abstract: Supply chain digitalisation equipment’s raise concerns for hospital decision-makers, especially regarding the cost-efficiency ratio, usually evaluated through health technologies assessments (HTA) ...

Stakeholders’ Views on Responsible Assessments of Assistive Technologies through an Ethical HTA Matrix

Abstract: Assessments of novel assistive technologies for use in home-based services has been documented to be performed in a variety of ways and often with a rather narrow focus on safety and effect or effectiveness. In order better to understand the place for wider forms of assessments of assistive technologies, the current study presents a combination of the Ethical Matrix and the Socratic approach for assessment of health technologies—the Ethical HTA Matrix. This matrix was filled with content based on a case of a GPS localization system, which was validated by stakeholders. In a next step, central decision-makers in assistive technologies and stakeholders were interviewed concerning their views on this methodology. Mainly, the matrix was seen as very comprehensive, but too detailed with an abundance of information. Nevertheless, some informants suggested concrete uses of the matrix in their organizations. Some understood the matrix more as an epistemic tool aiming at providing an overview of the state of knowledge, while others identified a normative potential in the matrix that could be implemented in health innovation processes for the home-based services, in particular when discussing novel solutions and working methods with health professionals and care workers.