A Novel Maturity Index for Assessing Medical Device Startups

Overview

Journal J Clin Transl Sci

Publisher Cambridge University Press

Date 2022 Sep 15

PMID 36106131

Authors

Frances J Richmond

Grzegorz Zapotoczny

Brian Green

Sowmya Lokappa

Katy Rudnick

Juan Espinoza

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Startup companies in the healthcare sector often fail because they lack sufficient entrepreneurial, regulatory, and business development expertise. Maturity models provide useful frameworks to assess the state of business elements more systematically than heuristic assessments. However, previous models were developed primarily to characterize the business state of larger nonmedical companies. A maturity index designed specifically for startup companies in the medical product sector could help to identify areas in which targeted interventions could assist business development.

Methods: A novel MedTech Startup Maturity Index (SMI) was developed by a collaborative team of academic and industry experts and refined through feedback from external stakeholders. Pediatric medical device startups associated with the West Coast Consortium for Technology & Innovation in Pediatrics (CTIP) were scored and ranked according to the SMI following semi-structured interviews. The CTIP executive team independently ranked the maturity of each company based on their extensive experiences with the same companies.

Results: SMI scores for 16 companies ranged from 1.2 to 3.8 out of 4. These scores were well aligned with heuristic CTIP rankings for 14 out of 16 companies, reflected by strong correlations between the two datasets (Spearman's rho = 0.721, = 0.002, and Kendall's tau-b = 0.526, = 0.006).

Conclusions: The SMI yields maturity scores that correlate well with expert rankings but can be assessed without prior company knowledge and can identify specific areas of concern more systematically. Further research is required to generalize and validate the SMI as a pre-/post-evaluation tool.

References

Loeb G, Richmond F . Turning Neural Prosthetics Into Viable Products. Front Robot AI. 2021; 8:754114. PMC: 8513865. DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2021.754114. View

Ulrich L, Joseph F, Lewis D, Koenig R . FDA's pediatric device consortia: national program fosters pediatric medical device development. Pediatrics. 2013; 131(5):981-5. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-1534. View

Kogan J, Holmboe E, Hauer K . Tools for direct observation and assessment of clinical skills of medical trainees: a systematic review. JAMA. 2009; 302(12):1316-26. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1365. View

Spearman C . The proof and measurement of association between two things. By C. Spearman, 1904. Am J Psychol. 1987; 100(3-4):441-71. View

Wall J, Wynne E, Krummel T . Biodesign process and culture to enable pediatric medical technology innovation. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2015; 24(3):102-6. DOI: 10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2015.02.005. View

Hudson J, Khazragui H . Into the valley of death: research to innovation. Drug Discov Today. 2013; 18(13-14):610-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2013.01.012. View

Sun R, Kamat I, Byju A, Wettergreen M, Heffernan M, Willson R . Advancing pediatric medical device development via non-dilutive NIH SBIR/STTR grant funding. J Pediatr Surg. 2021; 56(11):2118-2123. PMC: 9125501. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.01.025. View

Brooks A, Huang L, Kearney S, Murray F . Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(12):4427-31. PMC: 3970475. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1321202111. View

Lyons-Padilla S, Markus H, Monk A, Radhakrishna S, Shah R, Dodson 4th N . Race influences professional investors' financial judgments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(35):17225-17230. PMC: 6717274. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1822052116. View

10.

Larson J, Williams R, Ketchum J, Boehler M, Dunnington G . Feasibility, reliability and validity of an operative performance rating system for evaluating surgery residents. Surgery. 2005; 138(4):640-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.07.017. View

11.

Gardner A, DOnofrio B, Dunkin B . Can We Get Faculty Interviewers on the Same Page? An Examination of a Structured Interview Course for Surgeons. J Surg Educ. 2017; 75(1):72-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.06.006. View

12.

Carvalho J, Rocha A, Abreu A . Maturity Models of Healthcare Information Systems and Technologies: a Literature Review. J Med Syst. 2016; 40(6):131. DOI: 10.1007/s10916-016-0486-5. View

13.

Kogan J, Conforti L, Bernabeo E, Durning S, Hauer K, Holmboe E . Faculty staff perceptions of feedback to residents after direct observation of clinical skills. Med Educ. 2012; 46(2):201-15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04137.x. View

14.

Blondiau A, Mettler T, Winter R . Designing and implementing maturity models in hospitals: An experience report from 5 years of research. Health Informatics J. 2015; 22(3):758-67. DOI: 10.1177/1460458215590249. View

15.

Jamieson M, Richmond F . The Role of Universities in the Commercialization of Medical Products: A Survey of Industry Views. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018; 48(3):347-356. DOI: 10.1177/2168479013513456. View