Interview with a Clinical Procurement Specialist

by Admin 2. October 2006 00:04
 

 

The Other Side4:

Interview with a Clinical Procurement Specialist

On Target asked Debjani Duncan, Head of Nursing, Clinical Evaluations and Networks at Healthcare Purchasing Consortium in Birmingham, to explain her role and how HPC fits into the new landscape of NHS procurement – and how the healthcare industry can most effectively engage with its new customers.

1. What is the scale of your clinical purchasing responsibility?

HPC is in the process of merging with the West Midlands Purchasing Alliance and Lifesource Collaborative Procurement Hub to form a new West Midlands Strategic Health Authority Collaborative Procurement Hub.

This is in line with the Department of Health’s strategic vision to implement one Hub per Strategic Health Authority by the end of 2007/8.The new organisation will provide purchasing services to NHS Trusts from all sectors, with a combined non-pay spend in excess of £2 billion.

The team of clinicians at HPC sits within the purchasing team and works closely with them to maximise the purchasing power of our member trusts through consortium membership. Specifically, they are tasked with ensuring that products purchased are ‘fit for purpose’ and that the clinical governance agendas of risk management and patient safety are taken into account in each purchasing exercise.

Equally, however, our role is to make clinical staff aware of the impact that their commercial decision-making has on the Trusts’ overall financial position, and to help them to understand the gains that can be made through cross-consortium purchasing rather than trust-specific contracting.

2. How do you interact as a supplier with NHS organisations?

The newly-merged Collaborative Procurement Hub will seek to provide a number of key advantages for its member trusts, including: a higher projected return on investment and increased cash-releasing savings; improved economies of scale; more effective rationalisation and standardisation of products, systems and processes; a more focused approach for suppliers to engage with the NHS locally and regionally; shared procurement resources and expertise, with improved career prospects for procurement professionals; increased professional voice and profile; and better use of IT capability as part of the e-commerce strategy to reduce supply chain costs and increase efficiency.

Healthcare Purchasing Consortium,Birmingham

The consortium membership consists of every type of NHS organisation, from Acute Trusts (with or without Foundation status) to Mental Health Trusts, Primary Care Trusts and Ambulance Trusts. They all look to the Hub to deliver an efficient and timely purchasing function with the benefits listed above.

The clinical team aims to interact with key stakeholders, mainly end-user clinical staff, to ensure that the purchasing function meets their needs. We do this directly by supporting specific short- and long-term purchasing projects, ensuring Hub representation at PASA category Consultation Groups and maintaining a cross-consortium rolling programme of standardisation and rationalisation of products to tackle risk management issues and deliver savings opportunities. We also try to address their needs indirectly by supporting the delivery of the Health Industries Task Force recommendations and the development of the Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing, as well as working in partnership with local development agencies to address issues of sustainability and innovation in medical technologies.

3. How do you interact as a purchaser with healthcare sales professionals?

As well as engaging with key stakeholders within the consortium member Trusts, it is equally important for us to engage closely with suppliers. As a clinical team, our interaction with them centres primarily around ensuring that they are better able to meet our clients’ needs and can provide the right kind of ‘added value’ services that clinicians need to support the services they deliver. Ultimately, it comes down to successfully balancing the need to save money for our clients in NHS organisations with the imperative to ensure that clinical quality is maintained or improved upon.

Specifically, we try to impress upon suppliers the type of information that they should present to clinicians through the Hub – how will their product help to deliver reduced length of stay, improved infection rates, reduced clinical errors or reduced costs through competitive pricing and/or commitment discounts? Have training packages and whole product life costings been included in their presentations? Finally, have lean principles for the utilisation of the product been taken into account during the design period – and if not, can the product be modified?

We want suppliers to be increasingly aware of these issues when approaching the Hub, because these are the ways that NHS organisations will gain the most benefit over the long term, and these are the factors that will help service leads within trusts to deliver the governmental targets that they are facing.

4. How well, in your view, is the healthcare industry meeting the challenges of selling to the new NHS? What do they still need to learn?

In my experience, the response to the changing NHS environment from industry has been mixed. Some suppliers are still not fully aware of the changes taking place within procurement through the Supply Chain Excellence Programme, while others are fully up to date and have good working relationships with their Collaborative Procurement Hubs.

Ultimately, it comes down to balancing the need to save money for our clients in NHS organisations with the imperative to ensure that clinical quality is maintained or improved upon.

The knowledge that suppliers have seems in many cases to be directly proportional to the size of the organisation concerned.

In order to address this issue, HPC is working with local development agencies in order to improve access to information and give SMEs the same opportunities for working with the Hub that the larger companies have enjoyed. This is particularly important for companies trying to innovate or break into the NHS from scratch. There is still a surprising lack of awareness about key changes in healthcare delivery and how these changes will affect the way that purchasing is conducted. The 18-week patient pathway, Integrated Service Improvement Plans and 10 High Impact Changes are just some of the initiatives that clinicians are grappling with, let alone considerations regarding patient safety and the need to address changing healthcare trends – for example, in the management of longterm conditions. Unless suppliers start to address such issues more directly when presenting their offering to the Hubs and the clinical networks they serve, they will find it increasingly difficult to engage at the level they aspire to.

5. How well, in your view, is the industry meeting public healthcare needs with new technology and innovative products?

Innovations fall into two categories: those that represent reiterations of products that have been around for a while and those that are set to change the patient pathway in ways that improve patient outcomes or are less resource-intensive. The later is by far the most desirable, as these products have the potential to make really positive changes such as reduction of the patient’s hospital stay, reduced pharmaceutical bills, lower infection rates and reduced patient readmission rates. These are the types of saving that will help the NHS and its patients in the longer term; and that’s better from my perspective than the short-term view, as it will help to preserve the NHS as we know it for longer.

6. What effects are the growing synergy between healthcare companies and NHS organisations having on patient care?

Through building closer interaction between NHS Trusts and the companies that supply them, HPC has delivered £13 million savings for its Trusts in the West Midlands alone.

These cash-releasing savings are used to improve service provision and fund innovation. The team of clinicians within HPC contributes to the savings generated, mainly through the standardisation and rationalisation of clinical products. This process reaps additional benefits over and above savings by: reducing product variation and the clinical risks associated with it; contributing to patient safety by helping to secure training and teaching aids built into contracts; streamlining the supply chain and improving contract compliance.

My ultimate aim is to ensure that over time, clinical and stakeholder engagement becomes an integral and essential element of successful clinical product procurement.

Beyond that, we are involved in a small number of projects with trusts and suppliers to look at improving the uptake of innovative products and services. It is too early to say yet how successful these will be, but we are encouraged by the progress so far. If adopted, these products have the potential to change the patient pathway in a really positive way. Some of the innovative products I’ve seen have the potential to achieve more than one of the goals listed above – and ultimately that’s better for society as a whole, in that they could reduce dependence on the NHS and thereby free up resources to be deployed elsewhere for maximum benefit.

7. What would your personal slogan be for the future of healthcare provision?

That is a hard question to answer, as I have had experience of being both a provider and a recipient of care and the perspectives are very different. From where I sit in my current role, my ultimate aim is to ensure that over time, clinical and stakeholder engagement becomes an integral and essential element of successful clinical product procurement. To this end, I see myself as a bit of a translator really: making sense of the clinical/NHS world for my purchasing colleagues and new entrants to the healthcare market; and on the other side, explaining the benefits to be gained from working with the Hub to clinical personnel who are busy trying to deliver care while increasingly having to consider the financial implications of their work.

I can’t think of a better ‘slogan’ than the original tenet of the NHS that it should be ‘free for all at the point of need’. If we reside in the UK then we are all potential customers of the NHS, and we should be aware that it is only through collaborative working that we will succeed in preserving something that is still envied around the world for what it achieves day in, day out – despite the pressures we all know exist.

HPC consortium

 

Tags:

Medtech Features

Submit to DotNetKicks...
Permalink | Comments (0)

The eye of the customer

by Admin 2. October 2006 00:02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steve May Russell

Traditionally, medical device sales has relied on a product-focused strategy. You develop a new product and then try to sell it – overcoming ‘customer resistance’ with your clinical trial data and convincing presentation. This approach has been driven by a product-focused marketing strategy, which in turn was driven by a purely clinical and functional approach to product design.

What is missing from this picture? Why does innovation in this vital field meet with ‘customer resistance’? Why should people resist something they want and need? Could it be because they don’t? Could it even be that the customer has been seen as a hurdle to be overcome by the sales professional, rather than as the true driver for the entire process of medical device design, marketing and sales? You may argue that the customer is the reason why your product range is so attractively priced. But is cost-effectiveness determined entirely by the price of the item – or does it depend on further factors, such as how and when the device will be used? Do you know what your customers really want? Are you even sure who your customers are?

The stakeholder chain

The significance of the patient as consumer in the medical device market is increasing with growing life expectancy. The current DH policy of shifting the treatment of long-term conditions from secondary care to primary and home care is an attempt to meet the needs of an ageing population.

As a result, it is essential for medical devices used outside the hospital to be designed with patient dignity, comfort and ease of use in mind. The ‘don’t try this at home’ approach – medical devices designed for the expert healthcare provider as end-user – is not necessarily the best one. Being deskilled, and thus easier for the patient to use without supervision, makes a medical device more cost-effective by reducing the pressure on secondary care.

Too much market research focuses on the ‘intrinsic’ value of healthcare products rather than their customer appeal. Consumer motives may be apparently irrational, concerned as much with service issues (dignity, privacy, comfort, even image) as with the ‘objective’ issues of cost and clinical value. A therapy is useless if the patient does not comply with it – and increasingly, the marketer has to consider how well the product motivates compliance.> Marketing needs to consider the entire stakeholder chain, from PCT and hospital purchasers to consultants, nurses and patients.

The patient may not be the purchaser, but will influence the decisions made higher up the purchasing chain. Sales and marketing professionals need to engage with all stakeholders – and to do so not as product suppliers but as service providers.

innovation gadget

Focusing on customer service, rather than on revenue per unit, gives the marketing and sales force a strategic ambition that maximises its access to the complex and demanding healthcare market. Instead of asking “How can this customer be persuaded to buy this product?” you need to ask “How can I help all the stakeholders who might invest in this product to get maximum value from it? How can the use of this product be integrated with their needs and priorities?”

From this perspective, it’s easy to see what is wrong with the concept of ‘customer resistance’ to innovation. It implies a wholly product- centred notion of what innovation is. A better way of regarding innovation would be to define it as the strategic implementation of good ideas for commercial gain. The innovation is not just in the product, but also in how it is used and how it is made available. New ideas need to be evaluated within a framework of meeting customer needs.

Asking the right questions

The traditional sales and marketing model puts half the weight on the ‘intrinsic’ merits of the product and the other half on the persuasiveness of the sales and marketing campaign. But in the medical device market, neither of these is as important as providing informed and flexible solutions to the complex problems that healthcare service providers and patients face.

Effective marketing requires you to see through the eye of the customer. You need to ask the right questions: rather than building sophisticated persuasion strategies on a foundation of ignorance, you need to understand why your customers really buy one product rather than another. The medical devices market is fluid because customer expectations evolve with new products. Marketing messages need to evolve even faster – and in dialogue with the customer base.

The innovation is not just in the product, but also in how it is used and how it is made available. New ideas need to be evaluated within a framework of meeting customer needs.

A real customer benefit is one that is recognised by the customer, who is likely to be motivated by more than one factor. Is the device worth the trouble of using it? Is it comfortable? Is it easy to operate? How long does it last? Is it transportable? Is it physically robust? Are different versions available? The customer will be motivated by an evolving matrix of priorities, in which the timescale and circumstances of use may be as important as the price.

If you add to the matrix of priorities the differing needs of a wide customer base and a lengthy stakeholder chain, it is clear that a single marketing or sales professional cannot take responsibility for mastering and responding effectively to all of these factors. The customer matrix requires a complex and well-integrated customer service matrix in which product designers, marketers and the sales force all work together and share their knowledge.

Innovation in the medical devices field is a great challenge and a great opportunity – but it calls for teamwork, joined-up thinking and customer insight. Only through the input of a cross-functional team can the principle of service provision be realised through the design, marketing and selling of an innovative product. It’s like designing the DNA of a baby: you can’t cut corners or leave the process to chance if, further down the road, the child is going to be fit and well.

smallfry logo Steve May-Russell is MD of Smallfry, a product design and development company in the field of medical devices and other consumer durables. To find out more about how Smallfry can help you to achieve successful innovation, phone 024 7654 5678 or e-mail steve@smallfry.com, or visit www.smallfry.com

 

Tags:

Medtech Features

Submit to DotNetKicks...
Permalink | Comments (0)

Use what you’ve got

by Admin 1. October 2006 23:59
 

 

Use what you’ve got

In today’s rapidly evolving healthcare industry, using your past experience to maximise your job opportunities is vital for career development. Ian Pinn of Delta Consultants discusses how to make the most of your transferable skills.

Ian Pinn These days, with the growth in IT requirements for all sales roles and the increasingly high level of educational qualifications, it is becoming easier to transfer between disciplines – which opens up a bigger world for sales professionals. How often do you see job adverts that require knowledge not only of spreadsheets and Word documents, but of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems? Sometimes a system may even be named as being what the company uses and needs expertise in. However, to be able to utilise your skills to the best advantage, you may often need to utilise the professional skills of an expert. This is where specialist recruitment companies can help and advise. Their role is to place round pegs (i.e. people) in round holes and not square holes.

But that does not mean your career is ‘pigeonholed’ as soon as you qualify in your chosen profession. A recruitment company needs to know the candidate’s skills and those required by the recruiting company. They have to look beyond the obvious facts in a CV and start to build up a picture of the individual, through telephone and/or personal contact. Building a CV that makes a prospective employer want to interview you is crucial, and recruitment companies can help you to do this.

Many healthcare companies state that being the right person to fit in with the culture of the company is as important as the candidate’s background. Part of the recruitment company’s task is to assess whether the candidate is a match to the vacancy in all aspects. By knowing the company closely, you can judge an applicant’s suitability quickly and accurately. A good example might be whether the applicant is an aggressive sales person or one who uses ‘soft’ skills. The wrong type of approach, and the company may lose business and credibility.

Opening up pathways

All of the above may seem obvious – but remember that what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. Look at the clinical diagnostics sector, for example. Most companies want to employ biomedical scientists because they know the industry, know the companies and most likely have worked on the products. It does not matter whose products you have used: it is the knowledge you have gained that matters.

So let’s say you take on a role with a diagnostics company after a few years in the lab, probably as an applications or product specialist. Then when you have some grounding in the commercial world, you can move into sales. This is where the world opens up for you. Generally, a good sales person can sell most products. Of course, you may need specialist knowledge (of haematology, clinical chemistry or histology, for instance), and this may determine your career path. But if you can sell ‘high-value capital equipment’, this is a transferable skill – especially if you also have good market knowledge of the NHS and its procurement systems – enabling you to move into radiography or medical IT.

This asset could also, potentially, gain you access to sales roles within biotech and pharma companies where clinical diagnostics products are used. Once in this environment, you have pushed your boundaries further and transferred your skills to a different market. By learning more about that market, you can start to assimilate expertise on other product areas that will move you further into the market.

A new direction

For example, you might make the journey from clinical automation to robotics to pharma robotics and drug discovery. You will need to look at overlapping science areas, such as genomics, that cover the spectrum from research to clinical. Of course, this is not straightforward: you will have to invest some of your time in learning the markets, and you may want to top up your education so that you can present to a company with more specific knowledge.

A simpler scenario might be one where you have worked on smaller, more Point of Care (PoC) equipment in a hospital – maybe as a biomedical scientist, or as a nurse or technician within Intensive Care. Your options here could be extensive, as you are ideally poised to move into sales of medical devices or laboratory products. Knowledge of the relevant NHS systems is essential here: you would need to know and understand A&E and Out-Patient departments, including how best to get time with nurses and/or doctors. This is often a small time window – but a massive opportunity if you want to sell PoC. Medical devices sales, which tend to be very much about people, can offer many varied opportunities – though some specialist areas, such as stoma care, can be difficult to break into without some specialist knowledge.

Knowledge of operating theatres and protocols can move you forward into other areas. Service engineers with good qualifications can also move into sales. In general, they are one of a company’s best assets, as they know the customer base well. Many engineers already sell service contracts as a part of their job. Therefore, those with an aptitude for sales may find it possible to change direction and use their selling skills to promote a product rather than a service.

Mapping the territory

The first thing you need is time to reflect and plan your career. Not to the nth degree, but in general terms: what you want to do and where you want to be in five or ten years’ time. Then work back and qualify what you need to do to achieve your objectives.

You should look at the trade magazines (Nursing Times is widely read by nurses) and visit the websites of industry bodies such as BIVDA (British In Vitro Diagnostics Association), ABHI (Association of British Healthcare Industries), IBMS (Institute of Biomedical Sciences) and Gambica. Go to exhibitions and seminars, talk to people and just generally network.

It may be that the healthcare companies are looking for a highly-motivated, successful sales person who ‘ideally’ has knowledge of their products and markets. If you have worked in a related market (such as laboratory instrumentation), you may be able to state that you have:

• achieved personal over-target performance
• motivated a team to perform over target
• launched a product
• a science or clinical background
• a knowledge of NHS procurement systems
• empathy with customers and patients.

Moving on up

So there you have it – but remember that any job is about continual learning and making the most of the opportunities presented to you (once you have recognised them).

Anyone can move between industry sectors, but you have to want to do it and put in the work required to achieve your goals.

Delta Consultants Logo
Ian Pinn is Director at Delta Consultants. He can be contacted on 01480 495047 or at ian.pinn@delta-consultants.com, or by visiting www.delta-consultants.com

Delta Consultants was established in January 1988 and has grown to become one of the largest independent specialist recruitment agencies in the healthcare field. Delta Consultants sources and supplies commercial staff for permanent employment or short-term assignments (interim) in the scientific and laboratory arena and the medical devices industry.

 

Tags:

Medtech Features

Submit to DotNetKicks...
Permalink | Comments (0)

MRSA: Are the hospitals losing the war?

by Admin 1. October 2006 23:55

 

 

As the Government publishes guidelines for the prevention of hospital infections, the MRSA deathcount continues to rise. On Target considers the message for the healthcare industry.

October 2006 sees the publication of the DH’s Code of Practice for the Prevention and Control of Healthcare Associated Infection. This document – a draft version of which was published in July – lays down detailed guidelines for those working in hospitals, care homes and related institutions, spelling out their responsibility to maintain safety and hygiene.

While these guidelines are an important step forward, they reflect a situation in which hospital managers have to be told how, and how well, to keep their hospitals clean. This is evidence of how deep the problem runs. For two decades, hospital cleaning has suffered from the conflict between clinical and financial priorities. The challenges faced by hospitals in fighting MRSA are typical of the difficulties faced by the NHS in procuring and utilising medical technologies.

Is the NHS winning or losing the war against MRSA? What can the healthcare industry learn from this struggle, in terms of broader strategy as well as specific opportunities and responsibilities? And in the new landscape of NHS procurement, who is cleaning up?

Something in the blood

The DH Operating Framework published in January 2006 states that “particular emphasis” will be given to MRSA, the aim being to “deliver year-on-year reductions in MRSA infection rates”. The goal for 2006 is a 20% reduction in cases of MRSA. This is hardly the most confident of targets.

Nor is it proving easy to achieve. In February, The Times reported that half of the NHS hospital trusts in England were behind the target to cut rates of MRSA infection by 50% by 2008, and that the number of cases of MRSA bloodstream infections reported between April and September 2005 was slightly higher than the number reported for the same period in 2004. In the same month, The Guardian reported that MRSA was linked to three out of every thousand deaths in NHS hospitals and nursing homes. The Chairman of the Patients Association, Michael Summers, commented: “It is clear that MRSA and hospital infections are winning the war in many of our wards.”

On 14th September, representatives of the charity MRSA Action UK laid floral tributes at the Innocent Victims Memorial outside Westminster Abbey. As public awareness of the MRSA crisis grows, so does awareness that better use of healthcare technologies could have prevented these deaths.

Wiping the slate clean

The healthcare industry produces technologies for wound care, infection control, surgery, hospital cleaning and treatment of bloodstream infections. All of these are essential to the war against MRSA. As with any area of modern healthcare, the industry can maximise its contribution through effective synergy with the regional and local structures that have developed to fight the disease. This is both an opportunity and a responsibility for the healthcare industry. The new Code of Practice is a useful starting point for the sales representative, who needs to consider:

•How can I make sure my own hospital visits are compliant with these regulations?
•How does the Code of Practice affect the uses to which the products I am selling may be put?
•How does it affect my target customers and the way I approach them?

In the balance

The sales manager needs to consider a wider question: How can our sales strategy be best integrated with the systems and priorities of the NHS?

The answers to this question will depend, in part, on how well the outsourcing of the procurement and distribution of hospital supplies (see page 14) supports the war against MRSA. If the medical technologies needed to prevent and treat hospital-acquired infections are deprioritised within the new NHS, it is not only the industry that will have reason to feel sick.

 

Tags:

Medtech Features

Submit to DotNetKicks...
Permalink | Comments (0)

Beyond the tipping point: selling innovative medical technologies

by Admin 1. October 2006 23:50

 

 

Beyond the tipping point:

selling innovative medical technologies

The NHS has traditionally been a ‘slow adopter’ of new technology. Ewan Phillips of Deltex Medical explains what this means for the medtech industry, and how the situation is changing.

Businesses that successfully develop revolutionary new medical technologies – ones that enable a significant step forward in patient care – are rare.

The goal of any new medical technology is to become a standard of care. This means that anyone not using the technology is providing sub-standard care, so the successful technology achieves very high market penetration. The innovator can look forward to years of growth and sustainable revenue streams – thus creating enormous value for the company’s shareholders while improving public health.

Can you afford to succeed?

However, success is difficult to achieve. Many good ideas never make it, and it takes a very long time and large amounts of money for an innovative product to become a standard of care. A new medtech company needs the infrastructure to manage its regulatory affairs and quality systems. It also needs to protect its intellectual property, invest in research and development, sponsor trials, market its product and train and support its customers.

My own straw poll of a handful of innovative British medtech businesses that are finally at or near to breaking even suggests that they have spent about £40 million to get there over 15–20 years.

The costs and time frames, along with the high risk of failure, mean that most revolutionary medical technologies are developed by small companies. Ironically, the big boys – the cash-rich multinationals – simply cannot afford to do it: the need to report growth every quarter is too much at odds with the profile of the early-stage development of the next world-beating product. It is easier for them to buy the occasional winner.

The point of no return

The life cycle of new (non-medical) technologies is often depicted as a bell-shaped curve: technology adoption starts with innovators and expands through early adopters, then late adopters and laggards. Eventually the technology reaches a plateau before its use starts to fall as it is supplanted by newer technology.

Medical technologies follow a similar adoption curve, but one characterised by very high adoption rates over very long time frames. The innate conservatism of the medical profession means that the vast majority of potential users fall into the ‘late adopter’ category. With the life cycle of a new technology lasting fifty, sixty or more years, innovators naturally focus on the growth half of the curve.

As usage starts to spread through the early adopters, there is a ‘tipping point’ (point T in Figure 1). This is where the late adopters start to take notice, and where the business has developed unstoppable momentum up the curve. Figure 2 shows what this means in terms of medical practice.

In the UK, it is particularly difficult to be sure when you have reached the tipping point. Technology rationing means long delays in translating evidence-based medicine into NHS practice. As the delay between British doctors deciding to use new technology and their getting the necessary funding is longer than anywhere else in the developed world, the innovator has to climb first a clinical demand adoption curve and then a later, slower, sales curve (see Figure 3).

Medical device tables













Getting a product into circulation

A case history may illustrate these issues. Since 1989, Deltex Medical has developed the CardioQ oesophageal Doppler monitor. The real-time data on circulating blood volume generated by the CardioQ is unique, and allows doctors to intervene rapidly in order to optimise oxygen delivery around the body. During surgery, the effects of anaesthetics inevitably reduce circulating blood volume; using the CardioQ reduces post-operative complications and reduces the length of hospital stay.

The scientific evidence supporting the CardioQ has grown steadily since the first randomised controlled trial was published in 1995.

All trials have shown better patient outcomes and reduced costs through shorter lengths of hospital stay. However, by 2003 large numbers of doctors’ business cases to secure NHS funding for the use of this product were being rejected or dramatically scaled back. Deltex Medical repackaged its value proposition in language aimed at bridging the gap between clinical and management agendas.

This helped managers and doctors at the Medway Maritime Hospital to work together on a ‘real world’ audit of the impact of widescale adoption of the CardioQ. The results were impressive: average reductions in length of stay of over 3 days per patient across a broad range of surgical procedures. In September 2004, the Chief Executive was quoted in The Times as saying that £1 million a year in savings had been achieved through patients leaving theatre in better shape.

As the Medway story coincided with new trial data from Worthing Hospital, the company was confident that this union of science and economics would prove a tipping point.

There are two reasons for buying a medical technology – to improve care or to reduce costs – and we had proved the CardioQ did both. But in reality, sales of the monitor fell sharply and have yet to return to 2002 levels. UK doctors today want to treat 250,000 patients a year using the CardioQ, compared to just 10,000 in 2001: a 25-fold increase. Yet only 25,000 patients a year are being treated in this way, compared to 5,000 in 2001: a mere 5-fold increase.

The costs and time frames, along with the high risk of failure, mean that most revolutionary medical technologies are developed by small companies.

In hindsight, our tipping point clashed with growing NHS awareness of financial difficulties. The traditional Micawber approach to NHS finances did not allow for ‘spend to save’ projects, and hospitals were not looking to the efficiency improvements now required by PbR.

The only way is up

However, the outlook for innovative medical technology in the UK is improving.

The Government is taking steps to move care out of hospitals and closer to patients’ homes. All NHS hospitals are now looking to reduce lengths of stay and engaging with doctors to achieve this. New organisations such as the Centre for Evidence-Based Purchasing, the National Innovation Centre and the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement are charged with improving the adoption of new medical technology in the NHS.

Most encouraging of all is the growing awareness that how the doctor treats the patient is fundamental to both quality and efficiency.

Deltex Medical Logo Ewan Phillips is Managing Director of Deltex Medical. For more information, see www.deltexmedical.com

 

Tags:

Medtech Features

Submit to DotNetKicks...
Permalink | Comments (0)

The DHL/Novation deal: what our readers think

by Admin 1. October 2006 23:48
 

 

 

 

The DHL/Novation deal:

what our readers think

The article and editor’s comments in the September On Target on the Government’s decision to outsource the procurement and distribution of medical technologies has met with a strong response from our readers.

Very good article on NHS Logistics and Novation. On Target raises important questions with regards to the outsourcing of NHS Logistics that are of great concern to all in the medical technology industry and many in the NHS, including patients. The article illustrates the extent to which this deal is being criticised from all sides, and gives voice to the growing unease over the role the giant US GPO Novation, a company with a dubious track record in the US, will play in NHS procurement.

Guy Rowland, Press Officer, ABHI.

* * *
I read your article on the Novation/DHL contract with interest. It already appears to be too late.

Like others, we are extremely concerned about the concentration of so much purchasing power in one organisation. We are a small instrument company .We fortunately have some speciality lines which surgeons swear by – but we also have repairs and general instruments, which under this and the supercentres regime could be affected very negatively.

I have also worked in the hospital supply sector for over 30 years, and my experience teaches me to be cynical of the effectiveness of anything introduced by the public sector.

David Peddy, Managing Director, S.I.G.H. Ltd

* * *
Your editorial and the article on Novation raise many concerns. We are a small niche manufacturer of stoma care and incontinence products; we make these for many companies, who supply our products through the Drug Tariff to patients. We still make a number of products for individual patients. We have always believed that, given the right appliance, a patient’s quality of life is vastly improved. If they have the confidence in the product, then they feel comfortable.

Our products are reusable but will biodegrade when their useful life is over. It only needs a small bag to hold three months’ supply, whereas with disposables it would require a small van. Our products cost substantially less than disposables on a yearly basis – about a quarter of the cost.

Some years ago in Australia, they introduced a single price for Ostomy bags whether you needed one every three months or one a day. This effectively meant that patients using our products could no longer obtain them on the Health Service, and either went to disposable products (which are more expensive on a yearly basis) or purchased products direct from our local distributors. A number still continue to purchase from us, but naturally that has dwindled dramatically.

I suspect Novation would not consider quality and the lifetime costs, but only unit costs. Do keep campaigning to maintain patient choice.

Roger Blackburn, DBT Medical Ltd

* * *
The recent decision to transfer NHS Logistics and PASA to Novation-DHL in the private sector is not unexpected, given current Government policy. What is rewarding to see is that pharmaceuticals are to remain within the managed sector. This is a positive decision which reflects the tremendously hard work of PASA staff and NHS procurement pharmacists in implementing the SCEP programme, and also recognises the risks involved in the medicines supply chain.

This recognition of risk needs to be applied across the entire NHS supply chain – the cheapest product does not always represent the best value. What also needs to be factored into this model is the increasing impact of Procurement Confederations and Collaborative Procurement Hubs. These organisations are still largely in their infancy in many parts of the country, but will undoubtedly increase in importance – and size – over the next few years. It will be important for suppliers to recognise who these new bodies are and which organisations they represent.

In my mind, there is a question of how much freedom these bodies will have regarding contracting and supply chain logistics, and therefore what the long-term relationship between the new procurement organisations within the NHS and Novation-DHL will be.

David Stead, MRPharms, DMS, JP, consultant pharmacist and Associate Consultant at HealthGain Solutions.

* * *
Please send your views on this crucial issue for the healthcare industry to chris.ross@healthpublishing.co.uk

 

Tags:

Medtech Features

Submit to DotNetKicks...
Permalink | Comments (0)

Damaging Healthcare’s Livelihood:what will the DHL deal spell for the medical device sector?

by Admin 1. October 2006 23:44

 

 

The Government’s decision to award the contract for the purchase and delivery of almost a third of NHS products to a US firm and its German partner has been derided in the British press. On Target looks at the media coverage of the controversial Novation/DHL deal.

When a news item takes up valuable space in the acclaimed satirical rag Private Eye, you can be sure that it has been honoured with a degree in notoriety. Step forward the Government’s latest plans to resist privatising the NHS – by flogging its equipment supply chain and purchasing services to a German parcel firm and an American Group Purchasing Organisation currently the subject of a US senate investigation.

Make no mistake: this is a big story, affecting thousands of NHS jobs, hundreds of medical device manufacturers and their employees, and the health of patients across the UK. But it has been drip-fed to the media in such a way that it seems to have escaped the full force of public scrutiny.

News of the Department of Health’s decision to outsource the work of the NHS Logistics Authority to DHL was officially announced on the same day that the national press were running ‘exclusives’ on the impending departure of Prime Minister Blair. A good day to bury bad news? Perhaps, although in this case it was at least at the expense of some better news.

Blair’s legacy will doubtless include the first meaningful steps in the privatisation of the NHS – an allegation strenuously denied by the Government. Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt has described the sell-off as the best move for staff and the health service, citing NHS savings of over £1 billion over 10 years. Suggestions that it is part of a wider plan to privatise the NHS were, she said, “absolute rubbish”. “The NHS has always been a mixed economy,” said Hewitt. “This is not driven by ideology. It’s driven by ensuring we continue to get the best care for patients and the best value.” One critic, writing in the Guardian, described the move as “privatising, at the stroke of a Hewitt pen, a 20th of the NHS”. The author viewed the announcement as another huge step away from Bevan’s integrated, public NHS in which everyone was on the same team.

Silent partner

Hewitt claims that NHS Logistics only provides around 10% of the 500,000 different products ordered by the NHS. However, opponents are not convinced; they point to the involvement of US purchasing giant Novation in the deal, which significantly increases the impact of the Government’s decision. Although they are not named in the announcement, it has been established that Novation will perform the vital role of procurement of NHS supplies under this agreement. According to the ABHI, this will give DHL and Novation control of almost one-third of a total NHS medical supplies and equipment market worth around £3.7 billion a year. In fact, the Department of Health makes it clear that DHL/Novation will be expected to increase that market share by as much as possible over the course of the 10-year contract.

“This is a bad day for patients and the NHS. A very efficient and collaborative supply chain partner stands to be replaced by a purchasing organisation which will be focused on price and will restrict choice for patients and clinicians,” said the ABHI’s Director-General, John Wilkinson. “The UK is already established as a ‘slow, late adopter’ of modern treatments and it is difficult to see how this transaction is going to improve matters. In most markets the competition authorities get uneasy when one player gets around 25% market share. Here we have a company which says that it has control of around 33% of the supply market to the NHS and is aspiring to achieve 80 to 90%. This will put DHL/Novation in a position of considerable power over hospitals and suppliers and could create a dangerously anti-competitive environment. This whole deal has been conducted in virtual secrecy with minimal consultation or parliamentary scrutiny, and with no evidence produced on how this new regime will benefit patients or the taxpayer.”

On Target Quick Read
•The Department of Health has confirmed the decision to outsource the distribution and procurement of NHS hospital equipment to German company DHL and (by implication) its partner, US group Novation.

•The new model of NHS procurement is defended by the DH as a cost-saving rationalisation, but has been widely criticised by the industry, the NHS and the UK media as monopolistic and restrictive.

•Novation is currently under investigation by the US Senate for alleged anti-competitive practices.

Innovation will suffer

Crucially, it is the impact on patient welfare that causes most concern. Critics fear that innovative products will remain out of the reach of those who need them most. “In stating that innovation and clinical quality and choice will be encouraged by the establishment of ‘a dozen product councils’, the DoH shows it misunderstands the nature of innovation,” wrote Robin Wendt in the Guardian.

“Innovation is almost never centre-led and is the result of individual groups of clinicians and managers working at grassroots level to find better ways of treating patients. The DH claims £1bn will be saved over 10 years, and DHL’s expectation of £1.6bn profits means a saving of around 12% of the total NHS procurement budget will be necessary. It has not been made clear where these vast savings will come from, but if the buyers use their monopolistic power to drive prices down and push smaller suppliers out of the market, then patients will suffer from lack of availability of new technologies and poor support for training of healthcare professionals.”

“Plans to include essential lifesaving equipment in this scheme are particularly worrying: buying cheaper blankets is one thing, but cutting corners when buying complex medical devices that may be inserted or implanted into the body of a patient is a recipe for disaster.” John Wilkinson, Director-General, ABHI

Equally, there are concerns that basic patient requirements will suffer as a result of the efficiencies of the new deal. “Plans to include essential life-saving equipment in this scheme are particularly worrying: buying cheaper blankets is one thing, but cutting corners when buying complex medical devices that may be inserted or implanted into the body of a patient is a recipe for disaster,” said John Wilkinson.

The US story

As expected, the most tart-tongued critique belongs to Private Eye, whose commentary is worrying and characteristically provocative. It details how Novation’s reputation in the US has been blighted following disturbing allegations made by Medical Supply Chain, a Missouri company that develops software enabling hospitals to order supplies direct from manufacturers. Medical Supply Chain claims that Novation and Neoforma, a dot-com company in which Novation has a 50% stake, have conspired with manufacturers, distributors and suppliers to charge $100bn in excess costs to US hospitals since 2002. As the largest Group Purchase Organisation (GPO) in the US, Novation was also recently involved in a $420m anti-trust judgment in a Los Angeles federal court concerning its reluctance over several years to provide doctors with a new type of pulse oximeter – the new device was produced by Masimo Corp, but Novation had signed an agreement to purchase an inferior product from another company.

Private Eye said: “Hewitt’s decision is all the more surprising coming as US doctors are complaining that GPOs like Novation don’t save hospitals money and don’t always procure the equipment staff believe is of most benefit to patients. In addition, America’s largest trade union, the 1.6 million-strong Service Employees International union (SEIU), has also voiced concerns about Novation. Giving evidence to the US senate judiciary committee, the SEIU testified that it was ‘concerned that questionable practices by the nation’s largest GPO, Novation, lead to rising costs in the health care supply chain, while at the same time limiting provider choices in a way that risks the safety of both health care workers and their patients...’ Hewitt does know what she’s doing, doesn’t she?”

Are you concerned about how the DHL/Novation deal will impact on your business? What will it mean for sales and marketing in the healthcare sector? Send your views to chris.ross@healthpublishing.co.uk

 

Tags:

Medtech Features

Submit to DotNetKicks...
Permalink | Comments (0)

Breaking Down Barriers: How the NHS is opening up to innovation

by Admin 1. October 2006 23:43

 

 

John Warrington, Director of Policy and Innovation, NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (NHS PASA), discusses how the changing commercial landscape affects the challenge of getting new medical technologies into the NHS.

It is nearly two years since Lord Warner and Sir Christopher O’Donnell launched Better health through partnership: a programme for action, the final report of the Healthcare Industries Taskforce (HITF).

HITF was established to explore common interests and identify opportunities for cooperation that would bring benefits for patients and service users, health and social care services and the industry.

So what has changed since then? The answer is: much. And getting an innovative project into the NHS has gone from being an uphill struggle to being a demanding, but potentially rewarding, challenge of engagement with new structures and new customers.

NHS a “slow adopter”

At that time there was a growing list of companies, mainly SMEs, who were finding it increasingly difficult to get their innovative medical technologies into routine use in the NHS. Two years earlier, Sir Derek Wanless had published his report Securing our future health: taking a long-term view for HM Treasury, stating that the NHS was a “late and slow adopter of medical technology”.

Issues of particular concern to the HITF team were how to facilitate the introduction into the NHS of beneficial new technologies and how our health and social care system could present a more attractive best discerning market for companies operating in the UK. The Government recognised the added value of supporting more timely adoption of innovative medical technologies – a modern health and social care service, better outcomes for patients and service users, and a vibrant, competitive industrial environment. The HITF team knew that to deliver this, some difficult barriers needed to be overcome. In summary, it was felt that the NHS customer often failed to appreciate the ‘value’ of technology – and this was compounded by the attitude of a procurement function that:

•appeared to work in isolation, with targets interpreted as price savings
•sought to commoditise technologies
•was risk-averse
•was rigid in its interpretation of and adherence to EU public procurement legislation
•struggled to bring best procurement practice into the NHS.

John Warrington Jonh Warrington

When you overlay this with a lack of clarity on access points and on who makes decisions in the NHS, allied to a perverse budgeting finance framework which creates a silo structure and mentality, it’s little wonder that industry – and SMEs in particular – were finding it hard to get the NHS to adopt their technologies.

The underlying purpose is that, in future, suppliers of new and innovative medical technologies will have a much clearer and faster route into the NHS.

A blueprint for change

Following the publication of the report, an HITF Strategic Implementation Group (SIG), cochaired by Sir Chris O’Donnell and Lord Warner, was set up to ensure that the report’s programme for action was implemented. A report on implementation is expected in November. The key areas of the SIG’s activity are:

•Creation of a new Centre for Evidencebased Purchasing within the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (NHS PASA) that will assess medical technologies to gain a better understanding of their value.
•Creation of a new National Innovation Centre (NIC) within the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement to accelerate the development and dissemination of medical innovation and build the supporting networks. The NIC will also contain a new adoption hub and training hub to build learning and knowledge around the introduction of new technologies. It will also co-ordinate the activity of the nine NHS innovation hubs.
•Ensuring that medical technologies and industry are embedded in the creation of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UK CRC).
•Piloting Healthcare Technology Co-operatives (HTCs), clinician-led collaborations between clinicians, patients, academia and industry, to act as sources of technologypull into the NHS in order to address areas of unmet clinical need.
•Developing a strategy for training and education on the safe use of medical products and technologies for all staff who use them in the NHS.
•Procurement — in collaboration with industry, significant work has been undertaken to develop a model for NHS procurement that creates the right environment (structure and processes) to ensure that ‘value’ is clearly defined, widely understood and taken into account in decision-making at all levels throughout the NHS.

Modernising procurement

One source of difficulty in implementing the HITF’s output has been the industry’s interpretation of the Supply Chain Excellence Programme (SCEP), also launched in 2004, by the Commercial Directorate of the Department of Health (DH). SCEP sought to modernise and improve NHS procurement through four streams of activity:

•doing national contracting better
•delivering new regional collaborative procurement hubs (CPHs)

On Target Quick Read
•The Healthcare Industries Taskforce (HITF) was launched in 2004 to facilitate the uptake of new medical technologies by the NHS, and to help make the NHS a more attractive market for UK companies.
•HITF identified aspects of NHS procurement that presented barriers to innovation. It has focused on creating new organisations such as the Centre for Evidence-Based Purchasing, and developing a new model for procurement.
•A key function of the Supply Chain Excellence Programme is the creation of the Collaborative Procurement Hubs, which are building governance and decision-making networks to achieve effective NHS-industry partnership.


•market-testing the NHS consumables supply chain (NHS Logistics and associated procurement within NHS PASA) to see whether the private sector could do this any better
•restructuring NHS PASA to fulfil the above criteria.

The difficulty for the industry has been that, by its very nature ‘doing national contracting better’ has inevitably meant a strong focus on ensuring that the NHS pays better prices for certain commodities, but not to the detriment of quality. Large suppliers to the NHS have interpreted this as an attack on their margins, and have therefore been unhappy with this activity; but it is inevitable that NHS procurement will challenge industry – hopefully in positive ways! Ironically, the ethos of EU public procurement legislation is that challenging customers drives competition, which in turn encourages innovation.

It is unfortunate that the national contracting stream has received the most attention and, in the industry’s eyes, has been the very essence of SCEP, when in fact the CPH stream has always been about modernising procurement throughout the fabric of the NHS in order to ensure that more professional, intelligent and ‘value-based’ decisions are made.
NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency – what we do
NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is an executive agency of the Department of Health. The agency’s aim is to modernise and improve the performance of the NHS purchasing and supply system and become the centre of expertise, knowledge and excellence on matters of purchasing and supply for the benefit of patients and the public.
Visit www.pasa.nhs.uk for a comprehensive list of services and contact points.

What’s around the corner

The CPH work stream, which commenced in early 2005 with three pathfinders, has implemented a generic model designed by the Commercial Directorate. Eighteen months later, implementation is moving at a rapid pace. The acting Chief Executive of the NHS, Sir Ian Carruthers, recently wrote to the new chief executives of the 10 strategic health authorities (SHAs) to urge them to implement the DH’s vision of one hub per SHA by the end of 2007/8, and to make collaborative procurement a priority.

The HITF team has been working closely with the new leaders of CPHs to ensure that the recommendations are firmly embedded in the hub model. The hubs are busy creating governance and decision-making networks to constitute the government’s ‘intelligent customer’. There is no doubt that the industry will see the benefit in the coming years, and that the relationship between the two parties will improve and lead to “better health through partnership”. A major overhaul of NHS procurement was never going to be a short-term project. It is unfortunate that SCEP has been seen as a price-cutting strategy when, in fact, it has always been about building the capacity and capability for world-class procurement in the NHS.

The third strand of SCEP has received a lot of attention from industry and the media in recent months. The introduction of the private sector to manage the NHS consumables supply chain is not without its critics, but there is no doubt that the outsourcing of NHS procurement and logistics on this scale will provide an interesting and informative model for wider government procurement.

Tomorrow’s world

All of the above represents a significant shift in the commercial landscape of the NHS. The roles of HITF and SCEP are complementary, but it will take time to build the capacity and capability needed to turn the new landscape of NHS procurement from a vision to a reality. The underlying purpose is that, in future, suppliers of new and innovative medical technologies will have a much clearer and faster route into the NHS – and that the NHS customer will not only understand the value of technology, but will also able to challenge the industry to innovate.

HNS PASA








John Warrington is Director of Policy and Innovation at the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (NHS PASA).

 

Tags:

Medtech Features

Submit to DotNetKicks...
Permalink | Comments (0)

It’s working beautifully

by Admin 1. October 2006 05:00

Abbott excels in 2005/06 Pf Survey

Pf’s Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey has been going for over five years now, and always provides a unique insight into staff opinions on the company they work for. Here, we examine how Abbott fared in the 2005 survey compared with previous years, and how it’s measuring up against other major employers in the industry.

 

 




 

 

 

 

Fact: we spend at least 50% of our waking lives working1

If you’re one of those who are lucky enough to have found a job that gives you just the right level of variety and challenge to make you look forward to going to work, then you’ve struck gold. But what exactly are the vital ingredients people feel are essential to job satisfaction? One of the questions in the 2005 Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey was: what work factors are important and how satisfied are you with them?

Abbott staff ranked the five top motivators as salary (1), job security (2), company culture (3), success recognition (4) and relationship with manager (5). Satisfaction scores on these motivators show that Abbott staff are significantly more satisfied with these motivators than respondents from other companies.

In fact;
• Satisfaction with salary is up 12% compared with 2003
• Of the 16 motivational factors in the survey, Abbott employees expressed NO net dissatisfaction with any factor
• Compared to the industry and competitor companies, Abbott employees have greater levels of satisfaction on 14 out of the 16 (87.5%) motivational factors. This is un-surpassed by any other company in 2006

Working at Abbott: on the up and up

Between 2003 and 2005:

The industry’s average satisfaction has dropped by 4%

Abbott’s average satisfaction has increased by 16.5%

On average Abbott staff are 11% MORE satisfied across the range of motivational factors than staff in the industry as a whole

Ronan Moran, Sales Director, explained: "Over the last few years we have made a conscientious effort to improve transparency within the Company at all levels. Whilst we will continue to strive to improve this further, the early signs show that most people in the Company are clearer about our business and organizational aspirations. Through this understanding, we believe everyone can better enjoy their work and develop their skills to ultimately achieve the personal success they deserve."

What they said – quotes from Abbott employees

The survey asked responders their qualitative views on what it is like to work for their company. Forty-four comments were received on Abbott, 13 were balanced and 31 of which had only positive things to say. No-one had only negative comments, an occurrence which is unprecedented in the history of this survey!




















“New management has meant that Abbott is on the way up”

“I enjoy working for this company as they are fair. There is a lot of cultural change happening at present which promises much, so we will see!”

“Very supportive. Keen to help me with my personal development. Set me clear targets and objectives”

“Very motivational and has improved in recent years. Keen on career developments and in achievement recognition. Enjoy working for company”

Getting the right environment

As we saw earlier, company culture was third on the list of the five most important things for Abbott personnel, and satisfaction with this is very high. Abbott employees are 20% more satisfied with their company’s culture than in 2003, and are 19% more satisfied than their peers.

Fourth on the ‘most important’ list for Abbott employees was the relationship with their line manager, and again the feedback was clearly more positive for this factor compared with other companies in the sector.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Staying put

If you fancy applying for a job at Abbott you could have your work cut out, since the majority of personnel are happy where they are! Very few personnel at Abbott are considering moving company compared with others within the industry. Most plan to stay – a great sign of a happy workforce at Abbott.

When asked for his opinion on the 2006 survey results, Damian Colehan, Head of Sales for Primary and Renal Care, said: “We are very proud of these results, they are a great achievement for Abbott. The company has undergone many changes in recent years particularly in the salesforce. We have listened to and worked closely with them to improve their working environment. We are not complacent, despite these excellent results, and we will continue our programme of activity to enhance our staff satisfaction. So, I would say ‘watch this space’ for Abbott’s performance in next year’s survey.”

For those who may be thinking of a move to Abbott he added: “Although with such staff satisfaction we are not inundated with vacancies, there are always some opportunities available, often due to promotions and career development. If you like the sound of our vision and working ethos at Abbott, then by all means give us a call.” If you would like to join a company which has excellent staff retention rates, offers a competitive salary and benefits package, tailored training and development and great opportunities for internal promotion, then please call the HR Department on 01628 773355.

References:

(1) Moxey, C. Job Fulfilment. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ healthy_living/health_at_work/emotional_jobfulfilment1.shtml. Accessed 18.09.2006. Sources:

(1) Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey. Completed February 2006. 1507 responders. 102 Abbott Responses. Presentation independently prepared by Nick Merryfield, General Manager of Health Sector Publishing, based on data supplied by the Royal Statistical Society (2) Comparison of the 2003, 2004 & 2005. Company Motivation and Satisfaction Survey. Prepared by the Royal Statistical Society in conjunction with Pf.

Tags:

Features

Submit to DotNetKicks...
Permalink | Comments (32)

Women in the noughties: is it still a man’s world?

by Admin 1. October 2006 05:00

In the age of equal opportunity and political correctness, the thorny issue of sexual equality in the workplace remains a delicate and controversial topic. Analysis of the matter is littered with enough sand-traps to give HR professionals sleepless nights, and is prone to so much generalisation that media coverage of it risks becoming bland and worthless. However, it remains clear that attitudes to gender in the workplace have evolved positively across all industries. Pf explores gender in pharma.

A RECENT STUDY has shown that this evolution continues. Pre-conceived stereotypes of aggressive women in business can be binned today, according to the survey from Orange and Everywoman. Four in five women count themselves as networkers, they are warm, friendly and sympathetic in their approach to networking. The eighties power suits were sent to the charity shop long ago, and the female workforce uses confidence, knowledge and good listening skills to network and get ahead in business.

The myth that hard nosed aggression wins has been dismissed. Forty nine per cent of the female workforce believe the sympathetic approach of Fern Britten is the right formula for successful networking. And a further 20 per cent adopt the quietly determined approach of Ellen McArthur to carry out their networking. Only 14 per cent of women use the same charismatic, assertive and gutsy qualities that Sharon Osbourne represents. Condoleeza Rice’s style of finding out the real deal, along with Ruth Badger’s ‘ruthless’ approach have only been adopted by a few women, with just 10 and eight per cent claiming they use these qualities to get ahead.

British women are also at the core of the digital networking revolution, using this technology to aid their networking. The trend looks set to continue, with three quarters of the female population wanting to find out more about digital networking techniques. They also completely embrace text messaging as a networking tool, with as many as one in three using text messaging more than they did a year ago, compared to only one in four men.

“The woman of the noughties has adopted the friendly approach and is using it to get ahead in business,” said Suzy Edward, Partner Director, Orange. “She is heading the way in adapting to new technologies enabling her to network effortlessly and efficiently. With £4 billion a year being generated as a direct result of digital networking, women are taking full advantage of the technology at their fingertips and using it to drive British business.”

So how do women fare in the world of medical sales? Pf’s 2006 Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey provides some revealing insights into the issue of gender. For the third year running, over half of the sample who responded to the survey was female (53%). However, yet again, the statistics show that at both representative and management levels, women appear to be paid less. The median salary for female medical representatives (57% of the ‘representatives’ sample) is £32,000, while the median salary for male representatives is £34,465. Likewise, the median salary for female first and second line managers is £47,100, while their male counterparts enjoy a median salary of £51,090.

Despite this difference at representative level, 63% of women were happy with their remuneration package (including benefits and bonuses), compared to 58% of men. This may be explained by a difference in motivational factors between the sexes; the top motivator for men is salary, whereas women value the relationship with their manager more.

Satisfaction with remuneration is not reflected at management level among women; only 42% of female managers are satisfied with their package, while 60% of men are happy. On a more positive note, according to the sample, there are more women promoted to management with less than 8 years’ experience than there are male managers with similar years’ service.


 

 

 

 

While the survey shows that there is a greater number of male managers than female in pharma sales, an increasing amount of women are progressing to higher levels of seniority within the industry. This month, Pf spoke to AstraZeneca’s Samantha Pearce, whose interesting career path demonstrates the opportunities available within the industry irrespective of gender. Her interview is published overleaf.

Tags:

Features

Submit to DotNetKicks...
Permalink | Comments (16)

TextBox

Tag cloud

Calendar

<<  May 2013  >>
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789

View posts in large calendar