Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41450481›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2025

Challenges and dynamics in reporting medical device incidents: a qualitative study.

Meital Mishali, Nadav Sheffer, Maya Negev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Meital MishaliThe Health and Climate Resilience Lab, School of Public Health, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Nadav ShefferSchool of Medical Engineering, Afeka-The Academic College of Engineering, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Maya NegevThe Health and Climate Resilience Lab, School of Public Health, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Adverse event reporting for medical devices is essential for post-market surveillance and public health, preventing harm like patient injury, misdiagnosis, or death and is shaped by regulation that defines policies, enforcement, and responsibilities. Various factors-poor maintenance, manufacturing defects, user error, or clinical issues-can cause adverse events, complicating root cause identification, sometimes leading to ambiguous accountability and hindering prevention. Objective: To examine perceptions, behaviors, and challenges in incident reporting among key stakeholders in the public and private sector in Israel, as a case study for a country where a Medical Devices Law is not yet effective. Methods: A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted based on 31 in-depth interviews with stakeholders from the Ministry of Health, healthcare institutions (e.g., physicians, nurses, management), and medical device companies (e.g., CEOs, regulatory affairs managers). Interviews were transcribed and coded using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Four key themes emerged. First, the complexity of causality in device-related events often shifted responsibility between device manufacturer and user, complicating root cause identification and accountability. Second, communication among stakeholders was often described as complex and unclear, sometimes influenced by conflicting interests. Third, reporting behavior was shaped by organizational culture, particularly management's attitude, which could foster or suppress engagement. Nurses were generally more active reporters than physicians. Fourth, a lack of feedback was a recurring concern, reducing motivation to report. Conclusion: Barriers to reporting include regulatory gaps, unclear procedures, communication challenges, and legal concerns. Still, many participants described positive inter-organizational collaboration. Stronger regulation and feedback mechanisms, clearer role definitions, particularly between physicians and nursing staff, and supportive managerial attitudes may foster a more responsive reporting culture. By incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives, this study highlights lessons of broader relevance for improving medical device vigilance and patient safety worldwide.

Indexed as

adverse eventmedical devicepost market surveillancereportingstakeholders

Identifiers

PMID41450481
PMCPMC12727643

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.