6 4 S U P P L E M E N T T O O U T P A T I E N T S U R G E R Y M A G A Z I N E A U G U S T 2 0 1 7
Considering the potential upside of
doing away with implant reps, why
aren't more facilities deciding to cut
out the middleman? There are a few
reasons why facilities might be hesi-
tant to take aim at one of surgery's
sacred cows.
• It's controversial. That's an
understatement, admits Gary D.
Botimer, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.)
University Medical Center. Those
who spearhead efforts to go rep-
less may face an uphill climb, he
says. He offers this caveat: Expect
"phenomenal" resistance from implant vendors, who wield a great deal
of influence with surgeons.
• Physician opposition. Younger, less experienced surgeons may feel
more comfortable with the vendor rep in the room, but most surgeons just
want to know someone will fulfill that role, says Daren Relph, CEO of
Wayne County Hospital in Corydon, Iowa. "As long as the tech in the room
is up on the training, the surgeons don't recognize a big difference," he
adds.
Other surgeons may oppose the model for a different reason, according to
Dr. Botimer: They don't want to risk forfeiting any "secondary gain" as a result
of partnering with key implant vendors.
• Vendors have value. Kelly A. O'Brien, COO of Medarva Stony Point
VENDOR SUPPORT
Common Roadblocks
To the Rep-less Model
• EXPERT EYE Reps bring plenty of expertise to the OR and
some level of comfort to the surgical team during
complex procedures.
Pamela
Bevelhymer,
RN,
BSN,
CNOR
