Google up a bit on Fiona Wood. Back before any approvals had been granted, she was testing her technology on patients - because she wanted to save lives and improve recovery of burns. I believe that WA doctors saw the results and jumped on board. East Coast doctors, however, were snarking to the media about her "experimenting" on severely burned patients (some of whom sadly died). I suspect that the Australian of the Year award further inflamed some professional jealousies, and those who criticised her doubled down on the "ethically I won't use a device without seeing the research evidence" position.
I believe what slide 20 is trying to communicate is that the submission process to the FDA involved key controlled clinical trials that they did not previously have to confirm safety & efficacy. Even if East Coast doctors are still resistant, this data presented to hospital boards may hold some sway on uptake. It provides the scientific evidence backing up the claims that this is a product that can improve treatment outcomes while at the same time reducing treatment costs. Win-win.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
