Mi-Ae Jang, M.D., Young Ahn Yoon, M.D., Junghan Song, M.D., Jeong-Ho Kim, M.D., Won-Ki Min, M.D., Ji Sung Lee, Ph.D., Yong-Wha Lee, M.D., and You Kyoung Lee, M.D.. Ann Lab Med 2017;37:213-22. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2017.37.3.213

Yoon Jae Lee, O.M.D., Ji Eun Park, M.S., Byung Ryul Jeon, M.D., Sang Moo Lee, M.D., Soo Young Kim, M.D., and You Kyoung Lee, M.D.. Ann Lab Med 2013;33:233-41. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2013.33.4.233

Lee YK, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2013 Feb;28(2):190-194. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2013.28.2.190

Oh MK, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2014 Jun;29(6):771-775. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.6.771

Soo In Choi, M.D., Mi-Ae Jang, M.D., Byung Ryul Jeon, M.D., Hee Bong Shin, M.D., You Kyoung Lee, M.D., and Yong-Wha Lee, M.D.. Ann Lab Med 2017;37:526-30. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2017.37.6.526

Medical device adverse event reporting is an essential activity for mitigating device-related risks. Reporting of adverse events can be done by anyone like healthcare workers, patients, and others. However, for an individual to determine the reporting, he or she should recognize the current situation as an adverse event. The objective of this report is to share observed individual differences in the perception of a medical device adverse event, which may affect the judgment and the reporting of adverse events. We trained twenty-three participants from twelve Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies about international guidelines for medical device vigilance. We developed and used six virtual cases and six questions. We divided participants into six groups and compared their opinions. We also surveyed the country's opinion to investigate the beginning point of 'patient use'. The phases of 'patient use' are divided into: 1) inspecting, 2) preparing, and 3) applying medical device. As for the question on the beginning point of 'patient use,' 28.6%, 35.7%, and 35.7% of participants provided answers regarding the first, second, and third phases, respectively. In training for applying international guidelines to virtual cases, only one of the six questions reached a consensus between the two groups in all six virtual cases. For the other five questions, different judgments were given in at least two groups. From training courses using virtual cases, we found that there was no consensus on 'patient use' point of view of medical devices. There was a significant difference in applying definitions of adverse events written in guidelines regarding the medical device associated incidents. Our results point out that international harmonization effort is needed not only to harmonize differences in regulations between countries but also to overcome diversity in perspectives existing at the site of medical device use.