Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Petra J. Porte (a1) (a2), Lisanne M. Verweij (a1), Martine C. de Bruijne (a3), Cees P.M. van der Vleuten (a4) and Cordula Wagner (a1) (a3)...


Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the risk assessment tools and criteria used to assess the risk of medical devices in hospitals, and to explore the link between the risk of a medical device and how those risks impact or alter the training of staff.

Methods: Within a broader questionnaire on implementation of a national guideline, we collected quantitative data regarding the types of risk assessment tools used in hospitals and the training of healthcare staff.

Results: The response rate for the questionnaire was 81 percent; a total of sixty-five of eighty Dutch hospitals. All hospitals use a risk assessment tool and the biggest cluster (40 percent) use a tool developed internally. The criteria used to assess risk most often are: the function of the device (92 percent), the severity of adverse events (88 percent) and the frequency of use (77 percent). Forty-seven of fifty-six hospitals (84 percent) base their training on the risk associated with a medical device. For medium- and high-risk devices, the main method is practical training. As risk increases, the amount and type of training and examination increases.

Conclusions: Dutch hospitals use a wide range of tools to assess the risk of medical devices. These tools are often based on the same criteria: the function of the device, the potential severity of adverse events, and the frequency of use. Furthermore, these tools are used to determine the amount and type of training required for staff. If the risk of a device is higher, then the training and examination is more extensive.



Hide All
1. Balka, E, Doyle-Waters, M, Lecznarowicz, D, FitzGerald, JM. Technology, governance and patient safety: Systems issues in technology and patient safety. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76 Suppl 1:S35-S47.
2. Hefflin, BJ, Gross, TP, Schroeder, TJ. Estimates of medical device-associated adverse events from emergency departments. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27:246-253.
3. Wagner, U. Risks in application of medical devices: Human factors in the medical environment. Qual Manag Health Care. 2010;19:304-311.
4. Gullikson, ML, David, Y, Blair, CA. The role of quantifiable risk factors in a medical technology management program. Health care technology: Trends and outcomes, The Environment of Care Series. 1996. (accessed March 31, 2018).
5. Tawfik, B, Ouda, BK, Abd El Samad, YM. A fuzzy logic model for medical equipment risk classification. J Clin Eng. 2013;38:185-190.
6. Karsh, BT. Beyond usability: Designing effective technology implementation systems to promote patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:388-394.
7. Hamilton, C. Critical assessment of new devices. Perfusion. 2007;22:167-171.
8. WHO. Medical device regulations: Global overview and guiding principles. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.
9. ASHE. ASHE risk assessment tool. (accessed March 31, 2018).
10. Collins, JT. Maintenance risk assessment of medical equipment. Chicago, IL: American Society of Healthcare Engineering. 2007.
11. Porte, PJ, Meijs, JDM, Verweij, LM, et al. Hospitals need more guidance on implementing guidelines for the safe use of medical devices. Health Policy Technol. 2018. In press.
12. Nationale Atlas Volksgezondheid. Locaties Algemene en Academische ziekenhuizen 2014. RIVM; (accessed March 31, 2018).
13. Medical devices directive, (1993). (accessed March 31, 2018).
14. US FDA. Classify your medical device. Food and Drug Administration; 2014 (accessed March 31, 2018).
15. Guez, G, Garg, A. The FDA and the medical device approval process. Dent Implantol Update. 2012;23:33-40.
16. French-Mowat, E, Burnett, J. How are medical devices regulated in the European Union? J R Soc Med. 2012;105 (Suppl 1):S22-S28.
17. Hwang, TJ, Sokolov, E, Franklin, JM, Kesselheim, AS. Comparison of rates of safety issues and reporting of trial outcomes for medical devices approved in the European Union and United States: Cohort study. BMJ. 2016;353:i3323.
18. Wyatt, JC, Altman, DG. Commentary: Prognostic models: Clinically useful or quickly forgotten? BMJ. 1995;311:1539-1541.
19. Harrell, FE, Lee, KL, Matchar, DB, Reichert, TA. Regression models for prognostic prediction: Advantages, problems, and suggested solutions. Cancer Treat Rep. 1985;69:1071-1077.
20. Oliver, D, Daly, F, Martin, FC, McMurdo, ME. Risk factors and risk assessment tools for falls in hospital in-patients: A systematic review. Age Ageing. 2004;33:122-130.
21. Healey, C, Osler, TM, Rogers, FB, et al. Improving the Glasgow Coma Scale score: Motor score alone is a better predictor. J Trauma. 2003;54:671-80.
22. Jennett, B. Development of Glasgow Coma and Outcome Scales. Nepal J Neurosci. 2005;2:24-28.
23. Health and Safety Executive. Risk assessment. A brief guide to controlling risks in the workplace. Health and Safety Executive; 2014 [updated 08/14.
24. Glendon, AI, Clarke, S, McKenna, E. Human safety and risk management. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2016.
25. Top 10 health technology hazards for 2014. ECRI institute; 2013.
26. Top 10 health technology hazards for 2016. ECRI institute; 2015.
27. Greiner, AC, Knebel, E. Health professions education: A bridge to quality. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003.
28. Flottorp, S, Oxman, A, Krause, J, et al. A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci. 2013; 8:35.



  • Petra J. Porte (a1) (a2), Lisanne M. Verweij (a1), Martine C. de Bruijne (a3), Cees P.M. van der Vleuten (a4) and Cordula Wagner (a1) (a3)...


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed