lymphoedema compression garments - 2019ilfconference.org...lymphoedema garments – testing for...
Post on 11-Apr-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Lymphoedema Compression Garments
Dr Gavin Hughes
Deputy DirectorSurgical Materials Testing Laboratory (SMTL)
Princess of Wales Hospitalgavin@smtl.co.uk
2
Who are SMTL, and what do we do?
Why test medical devices?
Experience of testing compression garments and share our information demonstrating that there are potential problems with quality of lymphoedema garments
– Testing for working groups
– Contract test results
– Adverse incidents Confusion with compression classes
– Different pressure classification systems in use
– Incorrect national guidance documents
– Incorrect best practise documents
– Opportunities for ILF
2
• Established in late 1970’s as a pharmaceutical QA laboratory
• Part of the Welsh NHS hosted by NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership (NWSSP) Health Board.
• Provide testing and technical services on medical devices to the Welsh NHS, Industry and the UK Health Service.
• 25 members of staff including pharmacists, microbiologists, engineering expertise, chemists, health technology researchers, IT and office staff
• UKAS accredited to ISO 17025 International Standard Testing Laboratories
• Independent, robust & traceable datasets
• Mixed Economy
– Commercial Income
• Medical device companies, Government agencies, Coroners, Police forces, Legal representatives
– Welsh Government Funding
• Testing and technical input on NHS working groups – NHS Wales Procurement
• Medical Device Adverse Incident Reporting (400+ per year) – Welsh Government Guidance NHS
SMTL
3
● 2011 - Welsh government funding to implement the Strategy for Lymphoedema in Wales.
● National Compression Garment Contract and Formulary for 1° & 2° care
● 2013 - Initial working group led by clinicians● Do we need to test compression garments?
● Class 1 medical devices - self certification ; no third party involvement● Often suppliers do not have data to support claims
i. no data
ii. borrowed data (fraudulent test reports)
iii. old data (>10 years)
iv. manufactured to a standard does not mean that the device complies with the standard
Lymphoedema Contract – 2013 – Medical Devices
4
● CE marking alone not robust enough to identify safety and functional issues
● Surgical tonsillectomy instruments 1
● Misclassification of instruments● Fraudulent technical drawings
● Wrong cutting angles of curettes
● PIP breast implants 2
● metal-metal joint implants 3
● Previous experience with similar compression garments - Anti-embolism hosiery
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
5
1. Tomkinson A, et al. Clin Otolaryngol. 2005 Apr;30(2):135-42. A laboratory and clinical evaluation of single-use instruments for tonsil and adenoid surgery
2. Department of Health, Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) Breast Implants: Final Report of the Working Group https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214975/dh_134657.pdf
3. MHRA, MDA/2012/036. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5485abf6ed915d4c10000273/con155767.pdf
AWC – Anti-Embolism Hosiery 2000
Ankle Calf Lower Thigh Upper Thigh0
5
10
15
20
25
2000
Leg Measurement position
Pre
ss
ure
(m
mH
g)
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
6
AWC – Anti-Embolism Hosiery 2006/07 - lower ankle pressure
Ankle Calf Lower Thigh Upper Thigh0
5
10
15
20
25
2000
2006
Leg Measurement Position
Pre
ss
ure
(m
mH
g)
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
7
AWC – Anti-Embolism Hosiery 2010/11 – negative gradient
Ankle Calf Lower Thigh Upper Thigh0
5
10
15
20
25
2000
2006
2011
Leg Measurement Position
Pre
ss
ure
(m
mH
g)
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
8
● User/Clinician queries● Garment consistency – difference in pressures between different
colours
i. Difference in garment lengths/pressures within packaging● clinicians reporting differences of 5-10cm between left and right leg
garments
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
9
● User/Clinician queries● Garment consistency – difference in pressures between different
colours
i. Difference in garment lengths/pressures within packaging
ii. Difference in garment lengths/pressures between colours
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
10
Beige vs Black – Haddenham Pertex Leicht CCL 1 same size garment
11
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
Beige vs Black – Haddenham Pertex Leicht CCL 1 same size garment
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
CLASS1
Ankle (mmHg)
Calf (mmHg)
Black 16.11 10.28
Beige 13.61 6.88
12
Ankle Calf0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Black
Beige
Leg Measurement Points
Pre
ss
ure
(m
mH
g)
● User/Clinician queries● Garment consistency – difference in pressures between different
colours
i. Difference in garment lengths/pressures within packaging● clinicians reporting differences of 5-10cm between left and right leg
garments
ii. Difference in garment lengths/pressures between colours
iii. Difference in garment pressures between 1° (prescription) and 2° (hospital) sources.
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
13
1° (WP10 Prescription) vs 2° (Hospital) sourced garments – Medi UK Mediven Plus
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
Ankle Calf Thigh
2° 35.7 21.7 10.6
1° 27.8 19.1 9.4
Ankle Calf Thigh0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
402° Hospital
1° FP10
Leg Measurement Points
Pre
ss
ure
(m
mH
g)
14
● User/Clinician queries
iv. Assess pressures of high usage lower limb garments● Uncontrolled oedema?● Patients like the garments● Good patient compliance● Easy to don, although clinicians often choose 1-2 smaller than
optimum
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
15
Haddenham Pertex Light RAL CCL 1 garments (18-21mmHg)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Ankle Calf
Hosiery Sample No.
Pre
ss
ure
(m
mH
g)
mean 13.87 mmHg
lowest 12.35 mmHg
highest 16.00 mmHg
16
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013
● Phased process driven by clinicians
(1) Working groups drafting specifications – clinician led
(2) Supplier days to meet tendering companies and explain process
(3) Bench-top assessment● Packaging, seams, stitching, welt, donning (patients) etc...
(4) Laboratory testing – functionality, safety, equivalence● Pre-contract Testing – Ensure that devices meet our stated
specification
(5) Clinical assessments
(6) Contract Award● Archive samples when contract starts – LOCKED DESIGN● Contract Monitoring – Ensure that devices do not change during the
course of the contract● Address concerns with suppliers/MHRA at earliest opportunity.
NHS Wales Procurement Contracts
17
● 100's of contract lines.● Snap shot of quality of 11 main high volume contract lines.
● 8 lower limb garments covering:● Circular and flat knit● Below knee and thigh length● Off the shelf and Made to measure● Pressure classes 1,2 & 3
● 3 upper limb garments covering:● Circular and flat knit● Off the shelf and Made to measure● Pressure classes 1 & 2
● Surrogate lymphoedema patient limb based on average patient size.● Patient limb sizes provided to companies● Companies supply product to fit the patient limb
All-Wales Lymphoedema Contract - Jan 2014
18
● Defined graduated pressure requirements based on RAL pressure classes:● Lower Limb
● Class I – 18-21mmHg● Class II – 23-32mmHg● Class III – 34-46mmHg
● Upper Limb● Circular Knit Class I – 14-21mmHg● Flat Knit Class I – 18-21mmHg● Class II – 23-32mmHg
● Failures● Mean compression pressures fell outside of the limits listed above (plus
uncertainty of measurement of test method 13%)● Compression garments exhibit a negative gradient.
All-Wales Lymphoedema Contract - Jan 2014
19
HATRA Hosiery Tester – British Standard (BS 6612 superseded by BS 661210)
20
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2014
Results = Lower limb 78% compliance
Category PressureClass
Pass / Samples
Comments
Thigh, circular knit, light sheer
18 – 21 5 / 5
23 – 32 5 / 5
Thigh, circular knit, firmer denser
23 – 32 3 / 3
34 – 46 2 / 3 1 < ankle pressure (Sigvaris Traditional)
Knee, flat knit 18 – 21 0 / 1 < ankle pressure (15mmHg Haddenham Goldpunkt)
23 – 32 0 / 1 < ankle pressure (18.6mmHg Haddenham Goldpunkt)
34 – 46 0 / 1 < ankle pressure (22.2mmHg Haddenham Goldpunkt)
Thigh, flat knit, M2M 23 – 32 3 / 4 1 -ve gradient Haddenham Goldpunkt)
18 / 23 = 78%
21
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2014
Results = Upper limb 50% compliance
● Overall 71% compliance rate● Requirement to re-tender for a number of contract lines
Category PressureClass
Pass / Samples
Comments
Arm sleeve, circular knit 14 – 21 0 / 2 > wrist pressure (27.4 mmHg Medi Harmony)1 -ve gradient (Sigvaris Advance)
23 – 32 1 / 2 > wrist pressure (42.7 mmHg Medi Harmony)
Arm sleeve, flat knit , M2M 23 – 32 3 / 4 1 -ve gradient (BSN Elvarex)
4 / 8 = 50%
22
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2014
Results = Lower limb 81% compliance
Category PressureClass
Pass / Samples
Comments
Thigh, circular knit, firmer denser
23 – 32 4 / 4
34 – 46 2 / 3 1 < ankle pressure (Juzo Dynamic)
Knee, flat knit 18 – 21 1 / 1
23 – 32 2 / 2
34 – 46 2 / 2
Thigh, flat knit, M2M 23 – 32 2 / 4 1 -ve gradient (Haddenham Goldpunkt)1 < ankle pressure (Juzo Expert)
13 / 16 = 81%
23
Lymphoedema Contract – Re-Tender 2014
Results = Upper limb 86% compliance
● Overall 83% compliance rate● We could tender for all of the categories tested
Category PressureClass
Pass / Samples
Comments
Arm sleeve, circular knit 14 – 21 2 / 3 -ve gradient - Sigvaris Advance
23 – 32 3 / 3
Arm sleeve, flat knit , M2M 23 – 32 1 / 1
6 / 7 = 86%
24
Lymphoedema Contract – Re-Tender 2014
2014 Lymphoedema Contracts Summary
i. A number of garments exert negative gradients which may cause patient harm
ii. Only 75% of compression garments comply with pressure claims
iii. Experienced problems with Made to Measure garments
i. Poorly sized
ii. Low pressures
iv. Exerted pressures are usually at the lower end of the claimed pressure range.
25
Results Lower limb Class 2
23 mmHg
32 mmHg
Medi UKHaddenhamBSNJuzoSigvaris
26
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2014
Results Lower limb Class 2
23 mmHg
32 mmHg
Goldpunkt18.1mmHg
Elvarex24.7mmHg
Goldpunkt22.6mmHg
Mediven Mondi
22.6 mmHg
Traditional22.2mmHg
Expert20.8 mmHg
Dynamic22.4mmHg
Mediven Plus
22.6 mmHg
Medi UKHaddenhamBSNJuzoSigvaris
27
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2014
● New 4 year new contract ; Similar process to 2014 contract● SMTL testing of 10 contract lines
● Issues identified during 2014 contract period● High volume contract lines
● Surrogate lymphoedema patient limb based on average patient size.● Defined graduated pressure requirements with 20% tolerance from
the mid-point of the pressure range e.g.● Class 1 limits = 15.6 – 23.4mmHg● Class 2 limits = 22.0 – 33.0mmHg● Class 3 limits = 32.0 – 48mmHg
(Takes into account uncertainty of measurement and manufacturing variability)
● Externally cross reference SMTL test results.● Sample sent to Hohenstein Institute for RAL compliance testing.
All-Wales Lymphoedema Contract - 2018
28
Results = Overall 58% compliance
Lower limb
Upper limb
Category PressureClass
Pass / Samples
Circular Knit 18 – 21 7 / 9
23 – 32 8 / 12
Flat Knit 18 – 21 0 / 1
23 – 32 1 / 5 *
34 – 46 1 / 1
Product PressureClass
Pass / Samples
Circular Knit 23 – 32 2 / 4
Flat Knit 23 – 32 0 / 1
29
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2018
Test requirements and test reports published on - www.medidex.com
* Made to measure garments submitted for 2018 contract
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2018
30
* Made to Measure Lower Limb Below Knee Class 1 Flat Knit
Garment Mean Ankle (mmHg)
Mean Calf (mmHg)
Pass / Fail(15.6 – 23.4 mmHg)
Comments
Sigvaris Optiform Hold 9.8 9.0 Fail < Ankle pressures
Haddenham Goldpunkt 26.0 20.1 Fail > Ankle pressures
BSN Jobst Elvarex 21.0 14.4 Pass -
Mediven Mondi 13.8 9.5 Fail < Ankle pressures
31
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2018
Hohenstein HOSY RAL testing (2 garments tested)
Garment RAL Compliance Comments
* Sigvaris Optiform Hold (Class 1) Fail Ankle pressure failure
* Haddenham Goldpunkt (Class 1) Fail Ankle pressure failure
* BSN Jobst Elvarex (Class 1) Fail Ankle pressure failure
* Mediven Mondi (Class 1) Fail Ankle pressure failure
Mediven Legance (Class 1) Fail Ankle pressure failure
BSN Jobst Ultrasheer (Class 1) Fail Ankle pressure failure and B1 ratio
BSN Jobst Opaque (Class 2) Pass
Juzo Dynamic (Class 2) Pass
32
Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2018
Mediven Harmony (Class 2) Pass
BSN Jobst Bella Lite (Class 2) Fail Wrist pressure failure
Mediven Esprit (Class 2) Pass
• Independently assess the device to confirm the adverse incident.
• Make sure that the company undertakes the appropriate corrective action if there is an issue with the medical device.
• Record and trend adverse incidents.
• Take this information through to future procurement contracts.
• 161 reported adverse incidents with lymphoedema compression garments since Jan 2013.● 1331 reports received over this period● 12% of all NHS Wales medical device incidents
33
Reporting Adverse Incidents - Lymphoedema Garments
34
Manufacturer 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TOTAL
BSN 13 16 4 6 7 46
Haddenham 16 11 8 6 8 49
Juzo 0 3 4 2 0 9
Medi UK 7 9 11 7 4 38
Sigvaris 7 7 4 0 1 19
TOTAL 43 (12%) 36 (16%) 31 (12%) 21 (9%) 20 (8%) 161 (12%)
2014 2015 2016 2017 20180
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
BSN
Haddenham
Juzo
Medi UK
Sigvaris
Year
No
of
De
fec
t R
ep
ort
sReporting Adverse Incidents - Lymphoedema Garments
34
● Not necessarily the companies with the highest number of adverse incident reports, but rather how the problem is investigated.
● Investigations have also identified training requirements / not necessarily garment anomalies.
GOOD EXAMPLE REPLY
“I have referred the stockings to the manufacturing facility. They have concluded their own investigation and they advise that, in this case, the tear at the grip top is a manufacturing error.”
“They acknowledge that this should not have passed their quality control checks and they have installed additional control measures to avoid these problems in the future”
“I am not clear if in this instance replacement garments have already been provided, but if such are required we would be happy to provide them free of charge”
35
Reporting Adverse Incidents - Lymphoedema Garments
BAD EXAMPLE REPLY
“Sadly on checking the garment, it was found to have been produced in week 3, 2014 and is therefore too old to be assessed under our 6 month guarantee
period.”
“I therefore return the garment to you”
● 6 month guarantee but from what date?● Date of manufacturer not date of donning● Made 2 measure and 'off the shelf' garments● These do not match our contract Ts & Cs
36
Reporting Adverse Incidents - Lymphoedema Garments
● Clinicians in general did not objectively assess the garments they don.
● Clinicians should trust own and patients assumptions.● Will question patients compliance but not the garment pressures.
● Some devices on the market that exert negative gradients that have the potential to cause patient injury.
● Compliance and performance issues with some RAL accredited companies.
● Don't assume the pressures exerted on the patient are the same as claimed on packaging.
● Pressures exerted are likely to be at the lower end of the pressure range● Question the companies● Ask for independent evidence of claims
Lessons Learnt
37
• No current international agreement on the specification of compression classes
• Confusing for patients and clinicians
i. Differences in compression classes between countries
Confusion with Compression Classes
38
Differences between countries
Confusion with Compression Classes
39
UK(Elastic Hosiery BNF Drug Tariff)
France(AFNOR)
Germany(RAL)
Low compression
- 7.5 – 12.8 -
Class 1 14 – 17 10 – 15 18 – 21
Class 2 18 – 24 15 – 20 23 – 32
Class 3 25 – 35 20 – 36 34 – 46
Class 4 - 36+ 49+
Differences within the UK – 25 pressure classes for Lymphoedema garments!
Confusion with Compression Classes
40
UK (BNF / Drug Tariff)
Elastic Hosiery Spec. 40
Elastic Hosiery Lymphoedema GarmentsLower Limb Upper Limb
Class 1 14 – 19 14 – 17 10 – 1510 – 1714 – 1714 – 18 (low comp)
15 – 2015 – 2118 – 21
12 – 16 (low comp)
14 – 18 (low comp)
15 – 2015 – 2118 – 21
Class 2 16 – 25 18 – 24 15 – 1818 – 2420 – 30 (light comp)
20 – 3623 – 3225 – 32
20 – 25 (med comp)
20 – 30 (light comp)
23 – 32
Class 3 24 – 35 25 – 35 33 – 4634 – 46
30 – 40 (strong comp)
34 – 46
Class 4 - - > 46> 4949 – 5949 – 70
Class 4 + - - 69 – 90
i. Differences in compression classes between countries
ii. Differences in compression classes within countries
iii. Subjective terminology (mild, light, moderate, medium, firm, strong, high, extra firm, very strong, very high.....)
iv. Non-existent standards and pressure classifications
a) No European Standard
b) No pressure classes in British Standards for graduated compression hosiery
v. National Guidance Document errors● NICE (a & b)
● British National Formulary Drug Tariff (b)
vi. Best Practise document errors● ILF [2006 BPmanagement of lymphoedema (b) ; 2006 Compression hosiery in lymphoedema (b)]
● Wounds UK [2015 BPS Compression hosiery (a & b) ; 2016 BPS Holistic management of venous leg ulcers (b)]
● EWMA [2003 Understanding compression therapy RAL-GZ 387 quoted for bandages]
Confusion with Compression Classes
41
i. Clarification
ii.Consensus on pressure classifications?
• Could these cover a number of clinical conditions?
• Lymphoedema, Woundcare, Vascular, Support garments etc...
iii. Garment Classification?
• Based on primary intention of treatment – compression
• Lower limb, Upper limb, Bandages, Compression Wraps etc...
• Circular knit, Flat knit etc…
UK are taking steps on this but could there be an International solution?
Opportunities - Compression Classes
42
Mel Thomas, Karen Morgan and the other lymphoedema clinicians in Wales
Lymphoedema Network Wales (UK National Patient Safety award at the 2016 Patient Safety Awards)
NWSSP Procurement Services
Louise Barry (SMTL)
Gavin Hughese gavin@smtl.co.uk
T +44 (0) 1656 752820
Acknowledgements
top related