Corporate reputation of the medical device industry – the patient perspective (3rd edition)

 

 

MEDICAL DEVICE COVER (2) - 2014 CN Aw_1

 

Report published by PatientView, June 4th 2014

London, June 4, 2014. This report is based on the findings of a PatientView March-April 2014 global survey exploring the views of 428 international, national, regional, and local patient groups from 54 countries (86% from Europe), and with a wide range of differing medical specialties. The report provides feedback on the corporate reputation of the medical device industry during 2013-2014, as well as the performance of 28 leading medical device companies for six key indicators that influence corporate reputation: patient-centredness; patient information; patient safety; useful products; transparency; and integrity. Results are compared with industry and corporate performance in the previous two years.

For the purposes of this report, the phrase ‘corporate reputation’ is defined as the extent to which medical device companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups. The 28 companies examined in the report are: 3M Healthcare l Abbott Laboratories l Alcon l Bausch + Lomb l Baxter International l B. Braun Melsungen AG l Becton, Dickinson and Company l Biotronik International l Boston Scientific l Coloplast A/S l ConvaTec l Fresenius Medical Care l Hartmann Group l GE Healthcare l Johnson & Johnson l Kimberly-Clark l Medtronic, Inc l Mölnlycke Health Care l Novo Nordisk A/S l Olympus Medical Business l Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Inc l Philips Healthcare l Roche Diagnostics l Sanofi l Siemens Healthcare l Smith & Nephew l St Jude Medical l Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation

The 2014 survey is an exact repeat of studies carried out in2012 and 2013, allowing the progress of the medical device industry (and individual companies) to be tracked over the three-year period.

Key findings industry wide

  • 2013-2014 results put the medical device industry first among all healthcare industries (but by default). 60% of the patient groups responding to the 2013-2014 survey state that multinational medical device companies had an “Excellent” or “Good” reputation that year, the same percentage as in 2012-2013, and higher than in 2011-2012 (when only 53% stated as such). These results, for the first time, place multinational medical device companies foremost out of seven healthcare industries for reputation among patients—leapfrogging retail pharmacy, the previous leader. But the medical device industry only occupies top slot because 10% fewer respondent patient groups judge retail pharmacy’s reputation to have been “Excellent” or “Good” in 2013-2014 than did in 2012-2013.
  • In fact, the overall reputation of the medical device industry has slipped, in the perception of patients. When respondent patient groups were asked whether the corporate reputation of medical device companies in their own right had improved, declined, or remained unchanged over the past year (2013-2014), just 34% felt able to state that the industry’s reputation had improved (compared with 40% in 2012-2013). And 26% of the 2013-2014 respondents say that the reputation of the medical device industry declined (the figure was 24% in 2012-2013). Multinational pharmaceutical companies, meanwhile, rank only 6th out of the seven healthcare industries. Just 42% of the 2013-2014 respondent patient groups say that pharma had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation that year.
  • The medical device industry’s performance at various activities of importance to patient groups is stable. On the whole, the performance of the medical device industry at activities of importance to patient groups has remained remarkably similar over the past two years (between 2013-2014 and 2012-2013).

 o   The 2013-2014 respondent patient groups assess medical device companies as continuing to remain strongly innovative, producing high-quality products (when compared with two years ago, in 2011-2012).  o   The integrity of medical devices companies in 2013-2014 (though seen by patient groups as being slightly up on that of 2012-2013) does remain somewhat lower than was reported in 2011-2012. 33% of the respondent patient groups state that the medical device industry was “Excellent” or “Good” in this regard in 2013-2014; in 2011-2012, the figure was 42%. o   Only 28% of patient groups see the medical device industry as being “Excellent” or “Good” at managing adverse news about products in 2013-2014. In 2011-2012, 41% of patient groups thought the industry was “Excellent” or “Good” at this activity.

Denmark’s Coloplast IS once again OVERALL number 1 2013-2014: although some significant shifts have taken place among the companies in the overall league table (the table amalgamates the results across all six indicators of corporate reputation) 

    • Coloplast A/S                 1st
    • ConvaTec                      2nd
    • St Jude Medical              3rd
    • Novo Nordisk A/S            4th
    • Roche Diagnostics          5th
    • Sanofi                              6th
    • Abbott Laboratories       Equal 7th
    • Fresenius Medical Care Equal 7th
    • Medtronic, Inc                 Equal 7th
    • Philips Healthcare           10th

Performance for individual indicators

  1.  Having a patient-centred strategy: Coloplast A/S
  2. Providing high-quality information to patients: Coloplast A/S
  3. Having a good record on patient safety: Coloplast A/S
  4. Providing high-quality, useful products: Becton, Dickinson and Company
  5. Being transparent with external stakeholders: St Jude Medical
  6. Acting with integrity: St Jude Medical

Results explained:  Detailed profiling of the 28 medical device companies featured in the 2013-2014 report shows considerable movement within the league table, due to shifts by a number of companies in their performance at some (or all) of the indicators. Companies showing the sharpest leaps up the league table—the rising stars—are:  GE Healthcare—up 12 places, Smith & Nephew—up 11 places, Baxter International—up 7 places, Fresenius Medical Care—up 7 places, 3M Healthcare—up 6 places, Sanofi—up 4 places. 

Footnote: Main specialties of the 408 respondent patient groups, % of responses (respondents may identify more than one specialty): Cancer 26.8% – Chronic disease (general) 24.6% – Neurological 23.6% – Carers/family/friends 20.1% – Diabetes 19.4% – Rare diseases 15.8% – Public health 12.7% – Mental health 12.0% – Respiratory 11.6% – Circulatory 9.9%, – Palliative 9.2% – Urinary 9.2% – Gastrointestinal 8.8% n Endocrine 8.1% –  Skin 7.7% – HIV/AIDS 7.0% –  Learning disorders 6.7% – Sexual health 6.0% – plus other specialties

PatientView is a UK-based research organisation that consults closely with patient groups, and publicises the work of the patient advocacy movement. PatientView focuses on the corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical and medical device industries (as seen from the viewpoints of these industries’ ultimate consumers—patients). If you would like more information about this report, please contact Alex Wyke at …+44-(0)1547-520-965, or email at: report@patient-view.com