Avoid equipment graveyards: rigorous process to improve identification and procurement of effective, affordable, and usable newborn devices in low-resource hospital settings.

BACKGROUND: Millions of newborns die annually from preventable causes, with the highest rates occurring in Africa. Reducing neonatal mortality requires investment to scale hospital care, which includes providing hospitals with appropriate technology to care for small and sick newborns. Expensive medical devices designed for high-resource settings often fail to withstand conditions in low-resource hospitals, including humidity, dust, frequent user turnover, complex maintenance, lack of stable power, or difficulty sourcing expensive consumables. Rigorous evaluation protocols are needed to identify effective, affordable, rugged, and easy-to-use medical devices appropriate for quality hospital-based newborn care in low-resource hospitals. METHODS: We developed an evidence-based technology review process to identify medical devices suitable for small and sick newborn care in low-resource hospitals. The eight-step process consists of: identifying devices needed for effective newborn care; defining Target Product Profiles (TPPs); identifying commercially-available products that may meet TPPs; conducting desk research to evaluate technologies against TPPs; performing technical performance verification testing under laboratory conditions; verifying technical performance after exposure to heat, humidity, dust, and power loss; performing usability evaluations with nurses, and qualifying devices that pass all steps. Devices were purchased, installed, and monitored in newborn wards across Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, and Tanzania. RESULTS: Of 271 devices considered, only 45 (16.6%) met corresponding TPPs based on desk research. Thirty-nine were purchased and evaluated in the laboratory; five (12.8%) failed to meet TPPs. Thirty-four products passing laboratory evaluation underwent short-term environmental testing; only one (2.9%) device failed. Thirty-seven products underwent usability testing with 127 clinicians; surprisingly, 14 (37.8%) failed to meet TPPs. Twenty-three products passed all evaluations, and 2457 devices were installed across 65 newborn wards in Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, and Tanzania. Continuous device monitoring reported minimal device failures, with failed devices typically returned to service within two days, resulting in an average uptime (service days divided by days installed) of 99%. CONCLUSION: An evidence-based device selection process can improve procurement of effective, affordable, rugged, usable newborn care devices for low-resource hospitals, and feedback to manufacturers can improve device quality. Similar processes could be adapted beyond newborn care to identify medical devices suitable for implementation in any low-resource setting.

International Image Concordance Study to Compare a Point-of-Care Tampon Colposcope With a Standard-of-Care Colposcope.

OBJECTIVE: Barriers to cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings include lack of accessible, high-quality services, high cost, and the need for multiple visits. To address these challenges, we developed a low-cost, intravaginal, optical cervical imaging device, the point-of-care tampon (POCkeT) colposcope and evaluated whether its performance is comparable with a standard-of-care colposcope. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were 2 protocols, which included 44 and 18 patients. For the first protocol, white-light cervical images were collected in vivo, blinded by device, and sent electronically to 8 physicians from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. For the second protocol, green-light images were also collected and sent electronically to the highest performing physician from the first protocol who has experience in both a high- and low-income country. For each image, physicians completed a survey assessing cervix characteristics and severity of precancerous lesions. Corresponding pathology was obtained for all image pairs. RESULTS: For the first protocol, average percent agreement between devices was 70% across all physicians. The POCkeT and standard-of-care colposcope images had 37% and 51% agreement with pathology for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), respectively. Investigation of HSIL POCkeT images revealed decreased visibility of vascularization and lack of contrast in lesion margins. After changes were made for the second protocol, the 2 devices achieved similar agreement to pathology for HSIL lesions (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the exploratory study, physician interpretation of cervix images acquired using a portable, low-cost POCkeT colposcope was comparable to a standard-of-care colposcope.