See the published version of this preprint at BMC Health Services Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Ferran Fillat-Gomà
Consorcio Corporacion Sanitaria Parc Tauli
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3506-5141
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: To cope with shortages of equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we established a nonprofit end-to-end system to identify, validate, regulate, manufacture, and distribute 3D-printed medical equipment. Here we describe the local and global impact of this system.
Methods: Together with critical care experts, we identified potentially lacking medical equipment and proposed solutions based on 3D printing. Validation was based on the ISO 13485 quality standard for the manufacturing of customized medical devices. We posted the design files for each device on our website together with their technical and printing specifications and created a supply chain so that hospitals from our region could request them. We analyzed the number/type of items, petitioners, manufacturers, and catalogue views.
Results: Among 33 devices analyzed, 26 (78·8%) were validated. Of these, 23 (88·5%) were airway consumables and 3 (11·5%) were personal protective equipment. Orders came from 19 (76%) hospitals and 6 (24%) other healthcare institutions. Peak production was reached 10 days after the catalogue was published. A total of 22,135 items were manufactured by 59 companies in 18 sectors; 19,212 items were distributed to requesting sites during the busiest days of the pandemic. Our online catalogue was also viewed by 27,861 individuals from 113 countries.
Conclutions: 3D printing helped mitigate shortages of medical devices due to problems in the global supply chain.
Keywords
3d Printing, airway consumables, Personal Protective equipment, medical device, Impact Analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 27 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 22 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Oct, 2020
Version 1
Posted 26 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 25 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 14 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 27 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 21 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 22 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 22 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 01 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Health Services Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Ferran Fillat-Gomà
Consorcio Corporacion Sanitaria Parc Tauli
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3506-5141
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 27 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 22 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Oct, 2020
Version 1
Posted 26 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 25 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 14 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 27 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 21 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 22 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 22 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 01 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Background: To cope with shortages of equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we established a nonprofit end-to-end system to identify, validate, regulate, manufacture, and distribute 3D-printed medical equipment. Here we describe the local and global impact of this system.
Methods: Together with critical care experts, we identified potentially lacking medical equipment and proposed solutions based on 3D printing. Validation was based on the ISO 13485 quality standard for the manufacturing of customized medical devices. We posted the design files for each device on our website together with their technical and printing specifications and created a supply chain so that hospitals from our region could request them. We analyzed the number/type of items, petitioners, manufacturers, and catalogue views.
Results: Among 33 devices analyzed, 26 (78·8%) were validated. Of these, 23 (88·5%) were airway consumables and 3 (11·5%) were personal protective equipment. Orders came from 19 (76%) hospitals and 6 (24%) other healthcare institutions. Peak production was reached 10 days after the catalogue was published. A total of 22,135 items were manufactured by 59 companies in 18 sectors; 19,212 items were distributed to requesting sites during the busiest days of the pandemic. Our online catalogue was also viewed by 27,861 individuals from 113 countries.
Conclutions: 3D printing helped mitigate shortages of medical devices due to problems in the global supply chain.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...