Forum topic

In our fast-paced careers as clinicians, we often find ourselves believing in the research-papers and literature supplied to us through the vendors that we meet throughout the industry.

As with most sales-driven industries, sales figures equate to bonuses received by sales representatives. Aside from a lucrative base commission, car allowances, and hefty expense accounts, vendors SHOULD uphold a code of ethics. Unfortunately, I have run into numerous examples of misrepresentation, and tactics often "bending the truth," just to stay beneath the legal "radar."

We should strive on assuring that all of our peers are still relying on scientific, unbiased, relevant information, rather than accepting knee-jerk decisions on a corporate level.

In example, I remember one summer's day when a sales representative from ICU Medical visited my facility in his quite impressive Lamborghini vehicle. Now what was I to think, when the vendor drove up in a vehicle worth well over $200,000.00!? Now its no wonder why such a cut-throat competition exists these product peddlers throughout the medical device industry.

Another example may be that of the same above-referenced company using tactics that "bend the truth." As a matter of fact, I attended the SHEA (Society of Hospital Epidemiologists) National Conference earlier this year due to the fact that my hospital's PICC team had demonstrated a decreased infection rate based on our best practices. During the Poster Rounds session of the conference, the Physician Leader of the Poster Rounds publically discredited the study of one particular researcher. That particular researcher happens to be on ICU Medical's payroll, and they have even had the nerve of using this misleading study as part of their marketing arsenal. They title this scientifically unsound study as "ground breaking." It is clearly posted on their website (www.icumedical.com)

After researching this ongoing vendor drama for a few hours the other night, I came across another interesting example of "vendor drama." In this particular case, the MicroClave people against the Invision Plus people. Check out Rymed's website when you get a chance (www.rymedtech.com). The following is just a taste of the corporate message from the website:

"TO RYMED’S CUSTOMERS AND PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS:
RYMED RESPONDS TO ICU MEDICAL’S FLAGRANT MISREPRESENTATIONS
Rather than competing fairly in the marketplace, ICU Medical has taken to spreading false and
misleading information regarding RyMed’s products and the lawsuits between the parties.
In addition ICU Medical has stooped to improper and unethical scare tactics. They have threatened
to sue a University, its researchers and nurses, and subpoenaed financial information from a Monastery
and its nuns. An ICU Medical representative has even secretly tape recorded a researcher’s nursing
conference presentation on the favorable clinical and in-vitro study results pertaining to RyMed’s
InVision-Plus...."

Now if this type of behavior was taking place in my home, I would quickly send my kids to separate rooms.

I'm sure you all know of the wonderful contracting issues that your hospital's partake in. Do you find it ethical when your hospital changes medical products without involving key clinician stakeholders? What if your facilitiy decides to change from a superior, patient-safety proven product, to a far inferior product simply because it is thrown in for a fraction of the cost...as long as the facility (or healthcare system) agree to purchase IV fluids from the particular vendor? Yes folks...this happens every day!!! As a matter of fact, my sister works within the Kaiser Permanente Healthcare System in Southern California. This particular system has just signed a major IV fluids contract with B. Braun, which brings with it a guaranteed low price for their needleless connectors. Even though the new IV connectors that they are "throwing in" with their contract have no clinical evidence of decreasing infections. As a matter of fact, the vendor misrepresents information to key clinicians, and unfrotunately these key clinicians choose to take the bait, hook, line, and sinker. They simply state that whatever evidence exists from other clear IV connectors (i.e. MaxPlus, Microclave clear, etc)...this can be used when comparing their product. What on earth do the three connectors have in common...absolutely nothing (other than perhaps being labeled as "clear).

Oh my goodness, don't get me started on skin preps, CHG-impregnated dressings, etc.... There is so much corruption that I truly worry about the direction our industry has taken.

Due to the length of this entry, I am planning on contributing additional information on various other needleless connectors, dressing kits, etc...in upcoming entries. PLEASE share this information with your education and infection prevention departments before they too fall prey to unethical vendors.

Yours Truly,

SCN