We use cookies, including third-party cookies from Google to serve personalized ads through AdSense, to operate this site and understand how it is used. By continuing to browse, you accept this use. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for details, including how to opt out of personalized advertising.
Accept
Health Works CollectiveHealth Works CollectiveHealth Works Collective
  • Health
    • Mental Health
  • Policy and Law
    • Global Healthcare
    • Medical Ethics
  • Medical Innovations
  • News
  • Wellness
  • Tech
Search
© 2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Reading: GAO: FDA Can’t Monitor Device Recalls
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
Health Works CollectiveHealth Works Collective
Font ResizerAa
Search
Follow US
  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
© 2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Health Works Collective > Technology > Medical Devices > GAO: FDA Can’t Monitor Device Recalls
Medical Devices

GAO: FDA Can’t Monitor Device Recalls

gooznews
gooznews
Share
3 Min Read
SHARE

The Government Accountability Office has weighed in on the failure of the Food and Drug Administration to properly monitor medical device recalls. Its review of the 3,510 recalls between 2005 and 2009 — 40 percent of which were cardiovascular radiological or orthopedic devices — found:

The Government Accountability Office has weighed in on the failure of the Food and Drug Administration to properly monitor medical device recalls. Its review of the 3,510 recalls between 2005 and 2009 — 40 percent of which were cardiovascular radiological or orthopedic devices — found:

Several gaps in the medical device recall process limited firms’ and FDA’s abilities to ensure that the highest-risk recalls were implemented in an effective and timely manner. For many high-risk recalls, firms faced challenges, such as locating specific devices or device users, and thus could not correct or remove all devices.

“The gist of this report is that the FDA can’t tell if recalls of high-risk devices were carried out successfully because it lacks criteria for assessing device recalls and doesn’t routinely review recall data,” said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia., who along with Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., called for the report. “Recalls are typically voluntary, and patients would be better served if the FDA took a thorough approach to post-market surveillance of medical devices.”

Grassley and Kohl said nothing about the single most important step the FDA could take to ensure that manufacturers have no problems in locating the patients who may have received a faulty device — requiring that every manufacturer create a unique bar code identifier for each device and requiring that that bar code become part of a patient’s medical record. If General Mills, a Minneapolis-based firm, can do it for every box of Cheerios, why can’t Medtronic, another Minneapolis-based firm, do it for every stent or pacemaker it makes?

More Read

Shifting Caseload and Markets in Tissue Ablation
5 Compelling Diabetes Management Technologies in the Works
The PCMH and Home Care Data: An Interview with Melissa McCormack
The Reprocessed Medical Devices Industry: A Value-Adding Conundrum
TIME Magazine Features Focused Ultrasound as One of This Year’s 50 Best Inventions

Buried deep in the report, the GAO informs us that the FDA has been working since 2005 on a regulation requiring bar codes on devices. Yet it is still at least 12 to 18 months away. Do you think industry lobbying had anything to do with this glacial pace of regulation? Alas, the Grassley press release makes no reference to mandating bar codes, which is crucial to the FDA’s ability to create a well-functioning and patient-friendly system for recalling potentially faulty devices.

TAGGED:FDAmedical devices
Share This Article
Facebook Copy Link Print
Share

Stay Connected

1.5KFollowersLike
4.5KFollowersFollow
2.8KFollowersPin
136KSubscribersSubscribe

Latest News

Workers Comp Claim Denied – Now What?  -- AI-generated illustration
Workers Comp Claim Denied – Now What? 
Policy & Law
October 9, 2026
The Case for Proactive Nutrient Support and Where IV Therapy Fits In -- AI-generated illustration
The Case for Proactive Nutrient Support and Where IV Therapy Fits In
Health Therapies
October 5, 2026
Biofeedback Technology in Addiction Treatment: What the Evidence Shows So Far -- AI-generated illustration
Biofeedback Technology in Addiction Treatment: What the Evidence Shows So Far
Addiction Addiction Recovery
September 28, 2026
Charity Care Is Written Into Hospital Policy. It Rarely Makes It Onto the Bill. -- AI-generated illustration
Charity Care Is Written Into Hospital Policy. It Rarely Makes It Onto the Bill.
Business Hospital Administration
September 25, 2026

You Might also Like

How Physician Offices Can Improve Patient Health Care

March 31, 2016

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Patient Registry (SMISS)

October 21, 2011

RSNA 2013: What Does the Power of Partnership Really Mean?

December 13, 2013
biopharma beat CES 2015
BusinessDiagnosticsMedical DevicesMedical InnovationsMobile HealthPublic HealthTechnologyWellness

BioPharma Beat: Wearables for Health – A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep

January 12, 2015
Subscribe
Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Follow US
© 2008-2026 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?