Free Hospital EMR and EHR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to Hospital EMR and EHR for FREE!

Despite Risks, Hospitals Connecting A Growing Number Of Medical Devices

Posted on July 20, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Over the past few years, hospitals have gotten closer and closer to connecting all of their medical devices to the Internet — and more importantly, connecting them to each other and to critical health IT systems.

According to a new study by research firm Frost & Sullivan, most hospitals are working to foster interoperability between medical devices and EHRs. By doing so, they can gather, analyze and present data important to care in a more sophisticated way.

“Hospitals are developing connectivity strategies based on early warning scores, automated electronic charting, emergency alert and response, virtual intensive care units, medical device asset management and real-time location solutions,” Frost analysts said in a prepared statement.

Connecting medical devices to other hospital infrastructure has become so important to the future of healthcare that the FDA has taken notice. The agency recently issued guidance on how healthcare organizations can foster interoperability between the devices and other information systems.

Of course, while hospitals would like to see medical devices chat with their EHRs and other health IT systems, it’s just one of many important goals hospitals have for data collection and analysis. Health IT executives are up to the eyebrows supporting big data transformation, predictive analytics and ongoing EHR management, not to mention trying out soon-to-be standard technologies such as blockchain.

More importantly, few medical devices are as secure as they should be. While the average hospital room contains 15 to 20 connected devices, many of them are frighteningly vulnerable. Some of them are still running on obsolete operating systems, many of which haven’t been patched in years, or roughly 1,000 years in IT time. Other systems have embedded passwords in their code, which is one heck of a problem.

While the press plays up the possibility of a hacker stopping someone’s connected pacemaker, the reality is that an EHR hack using a hacked medical device is far more likely. When these devices are vulnerable to outside attacks, attackers are far more likely to tunnel into EHRs and steal patient health data. After all, while playing with a pacemaker might be satisfying to really mean people, thieves can get really good money for patient records on the dark web.

All this being said, connected medical devices are likely to become a key part of hospital IT infrastructure in hospitals over time as the industry solves these problems, Frost predicts that the global market for such devices will climb from $233 million to almost $1 billion by 2022.

It looks like hospital IT executives will have some hard choices to make here. Ignoring the benefits of connecting all medical devices with other data sources just won’t work, but creating thousands of security vulnerabilities isn’t wise either. Ultimately, hospital leaders must find a way to secure these devices ASAP without cratering their budget, and it won’t be easy.

Approaches For Improving Your HCAHPS Score

Posted on June 27, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Improving your HCAHPS scores gets easier if you make smart use of your existing technology infrastructure. To make that work, however, you have to know which areas have the greatest impact on the score.

According to healthcare communications vendor Spok, hospitals can boost their scores by focusing on five particularly important areas which loom large in patient satisfaction. Of course, I’m sure these approaches solve problems addressed by Spok solutions, but I thought they were worth reviewing anyway. These five areas include:

  • Speed up response to the call button
    Relying on the call button itself doesn’t get the job done. If calls go to a central nursing station, it takes several steps to eventually get back to the patient, it’s possible to drop the ball. Instead, hospitals can send requests directly from the call button to the correct caregiver’s mobile device. This works whether providers use s a Wi-Fi phone, smartphone, pager, voice badge or tablet.
  • Lower the noise volume
    Hospitals are aware that noise is an issue, and try everything from taking the squeak out of meal cart wheels to posting signs reminding all to keep the conversations quiet. However, this will only go so far. Spok recommends hospitals take the additional step of integrating the monitoring of equipment alarms with staff assignments systems, and as above, routing nurse call notifications to the appropriate patient care providers mobile device. Fewer overhead notifications means less noise.
  • Address patient pain faster
    To help patients with the pain as quickly as possible, give staff access to your full directory, which allows nurses to quickly locate provider contact information and reach them with requests for pain medication orders. In addition, roll out a secure texting solution which allows nurses to share detailed patient health information safely.
  • Make information sharing simpler
    Look at gaps in getting information to patients and providers, and streamline your communications process. For example, Spok notes, if communication between team members is efficient, the time between a test order and the arrival of the phlebotomist can get shorter, or the time it takes the patient transport team to bring them to the imaging department for a scan can be reduced. One way to do this is to have your technology trigger automatic message to the appropriate party when an order is placed. Also, use the same to approach to automatically notify providers when test results are available.
  • Speed up discharge
    There are many understandable reasons why the patient discharge process can drag out, but patients don’t care what issues hospitals are addressing in the background. One way to speed things up is to set up your EMR to send a message the entire care team’s mobile devices. This makes it easier for providers to coordinate discharge approval and patient instructions. The faster the discharge process, the happier patients usually are.

Of course, addressing the patient care workflow goes well beyond the type of technology hospitals use for coordination and messaging. Getting this part of the process right is a good thing, though.

BioUtah Life Sciences and Health Data Innovation

Posted on January 17, 2018 I Written By

Healthcare as a Human Right. Physician Suicide Loss Survivor. Janae writes about Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, Data Analytics, Engagement and Investing in Healthcare. twitter: @coherencemed

Bio Utah is leading collaboration for Life Sciences in Utah that has shown great leadership both in connecting Utah companies with business interests in healthcare and improving life science research and education for schools. This includes a scholarship program for students that partners with local public and private schools including high schools and universities. Working together to improve the Utah economy was highlighted in their last one day event November 2, 2017 at the Grand America and I was honored to attend and hear from leaders in government, education and industry share their successes. Rob Etherington, CEO of Clene Nanomedicine, spoke about the success of BioUtah as fostering a shared culture of innovation.

One of the most innovative sessions I attended was the “Speed Dating of Health IT” pitching. Angel investors and representatives from banks and funds local to Utah sat at tables to meet a rotating cast of entrepreneurs, who shared their respective companies’ visions for real time feedback. I followed a group of three investors through a few rounds. One of the companies participating in the roundtable, Veristride, has a technology that is able to gather biomechanical data about walking, with the goal of ameliorating rehabilitation processes after injury or surgery, or for chronic condition management. This information can help reduce hospital readmission and inform better recovery planning.

In the current fitness-tracker obsessed market, Veristride’s background in physical therapy has facilitated the creation of a product that stands out in the market by recognizing one important truth: not all steps are equal. For instance, my able-bodied neighbor gets an insurance discount for having a certain number of steps each day, and has an insurance issued Fitbit. Every day during soccer practice, her 9-year-old son wears her Fitbit for her. She has never been at risk of not meeting her step goal. Veristride endeavors to close loopholes like these by finding better data about movement work. Their product may be one of the most unique offerings I’ve seen in a world of limitless tracking devices that universally seem to lack quality in their measuring tools. It is refreshing to see a company focused on gathering data about how patients move, rather than just tracking it.

I spoke to the Veristride CEO, Stacey Bamberg, about her efforts and about the Utah Biological Sciences ecosystem. She mentioned that it is great to have introductions to investors. Streamlining the process from  introductions to writing checks is the work of investment groups and support; the work of the companies begins after these round-table meetings. Scaling a company from early stage to market acceptance can be a laborious process.

Practice Practice Practice. Companies should practice introducing their offering and seek feedback from investors and customers at every opportunity. I loved the idea of matchmaking to quickly answer investors’ questions about a company’s size, structure, and most importantly, its unique product. Utah investors want to invest in innovative products that will improve the health of people in Utah, and this speed-dating approach yields an efficient way for investors and developers to connect. Innovative meetings and networking groups can help improve healthcare IT and all areas of life sciences at an accelerated pace.

Investors meet with entrepreneurs in a Speed Dating activity sponsored by USTAR at the BioUtah event

BioUtah is organizing more events designed to promote Utah Innovation. On March 1-3, 2018, BioUtah will hold another investor conference to connect entrepreneurs with Utah Investors, furthering their mission to build Utah’s Life Sciences ecosystem. You can register for the Investor Summit HERE.

Roche, GE Project Brings New Spin To Clinical Decision Support

Posted on January 10, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

The clinical decision support market is certainly crowded, and what’s more, CDS solutions vary in some important ways. On the other hand, one could be forgiven for feeling like they all look the same. Sorting out these technologies is not a job for the faint of heart.

That being said, it’s possible that the following partnership might offer something distinctive. Pharmaceutical giant Roche has signed a long-term partnership deal with GE Healthcare to jointly develop and market clinical decision support technology.

In a prepared statement, the two companies said they were developing a digital platform with a difference. The platform will use analytics to fuel workflow tools and apps and support clinical decisions. The platform will integrate a wide range of data, including patient records, medical best practices and recent research outcomes.

At least at the outset of their project, Roche and GE Healthcare are targeting oncology and critical care. With a pharmaceutical company and healthcare technology firm working together, providing tools for oncology specialists in particular makes a lot of sense.

The partners say that their product will give oncology care teams with multiple specialists a common data dashboard to review, which should help them collaborate on treatment decisions. Meanwhile, they plan to offer critical care physicians a dashboard integrating data from patient’ hospital monitoring equipment with their biomarker, genomic and sequencing data.

The idea of integrating new and possibly relevant information to the CDS platform is intriguing. It’s particularly interesting to imagine physicians leveraging genetic information to make real-time decisions. I think it’s safe to say that we’d all like it if CDS systems could bring the rudiments of precision medicine to thorny day-to-day clinical problems.

But the truth is, if my interactions with doctors mean anything, that few of them like CDS systems. Some have told me flat out that they end up overriding many CDS prompts, which arguably makes these very expensive systems almost irrelevant to hospital-based clinical practice. It’s hard to tell whether they would be willing to trust a new approach.

However, if GE and Roche can pull off what they’re pitching, it might just provide enough value it might convince them. Certainly, creating a more flexible dashboard which integrates data and office workflows is a large step in the right direction. And it’s probably fair to say that nothing like this exists in the market right now (as they claim).

Again, while there’s no guaranteed way to build out useful technology, bringing a pharma giant and a health IT giant might give both sides a leg up. I wonder how many users and patients they have involved in their design process. Let’s see if they can back up their promises.

Rush Sues Patient Monitoring Vendor, Says System Didn’t Work

Posted on August 25, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Rush University Medical Center has filed suit against one of its health IT vendors, claiming that its patient monitoring system didn’t work as promised and may have put patients in danger.

According to a story in the Chicago Tribune, Rush spent $18 million installing the Infinity Acute Monitoring Solution system from Telford, PA-based Draeger Inc. between 2012 and early 2016.  The Infinity system included bedside monitors, larger data aggregating monitors at central nursing stations, battery-powered portable monitors and M300 wireless patient-worn monitors.

However, despite years of attempting to fix the system, its patient alarms were still unreliable and inaccurate, it contends in the filing, which accuses Draeger of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud.

In the suit, the 664-bed hospital and academic medical center says that the system was dogged by many issues which could have had an impact on patient safety. For example, it says, the portable monitors stopped collecting data when moved to wireless networks and sometimes stole IP addresses from bedside monitors, knocking the bedside monitor off-line leaving the patient unmonitored.

In addition, the system allegedly sent out false alarms for heart arrhythmia patients with pacemakers, distracting clinicians from performing their jobs, and failed monitor apnea until 2015, according to the complaint. Even then, the system wasn’t monitoring some sets of apnea patients accurately, it said. Near the end, the system erased some patient records as well, it contends.

Not only that, Draeger didn’t deliver everything it was supposed to provide, the suit alleges, including wired-to-wireless monitoring and monitoring for desaturation of neonatal patients’ blood oxygen.

As if that weren’t enough, Draeger didn’t respond effectively when Rush executives told it about the problems it was having, according to the suit. “Rather than effectively remediating these problems, Draeger largely, and inaccurately, blamed them on Rush,” it contends.

While Draeger provided a software upgrade for the system, it was extremely difficult to implement, didn’t fix the original issues and created new problems, the suit says.

According to Rush, the Draeger system was supposed to last 10 years. However, because of technical problems it observed, the medical center replaced the system after only five years, spending $30 million on the new software, it says.

Rush is asking the court to make Draeger pay that the $18 million it spent on the system, along with punitive damages and legal fees.

It’s hard to predict the outcome of such a case, particularly given that the system’s performance has to have depended in part on how Rush managed the implementation. Plus, we’re only seeing the allegations made by Rush in the suit and not Draeger’s perspective which could be very different and offer other details. Regardless, it seems likely these proceedings will be watched closely in the industry. Regardless of whether they are at fault or not, no vendor can afford to get a reputation for endangering patient safety, and moreover, no hospital can afford to buy from them if they do.

More Ideas On Tightening Hospital IT Security

Posted on August 29, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Security deserves all of the attention you can spare, and it never hurts to revisit the fundamentals, in part because the cost of lagging security measures is so high. After all, it’s more than likely that your organization will face a breach, as almost 90% of healthcare organizations experienced at least one breach within the past two years, according to a Poneman Institute study done earlier this year.

Here’s some options to consider when tightening up your security operations, courtesy of Healthcare IT Leaders, whose suggestions include the following:

Hire white hat hackers: Mayo Clinic reportedly tried this a few years ago, and learned a great deal. While its security measures seem to have gotten something of a beatdown, the Clinic also found a bunch of security holes and got recommendations on how to close those holes.

Lock down employee mobile devices: As mobile technology increasingly becomes a key part of your infrastructure, it’s important to keep it secured – but that can be tough when employees own the phone. One question to ask is whether your IT could lock or wipe data from employee phones and tablets if need be. What are your legal options for securing critical data on employee-owned devices?

Review medical device security:  Networked medical devices – from respirators and infusion pumps to MRI scanners – increasingly pose security threats, as any device that receives and transmits data can be a target for attackers.  It’s critical to audit these devices, while setting careful security standards for device makers.

Train staff on security issues:  Often, breaches are due to human error, so it’s critical to educate non-IT employees on the basics of security hygiene. Offering basic security training should cover not only cover ways to avoid security breakdowns – such as avoiding generic or default passwords and phishing e-mails — but also explanations of how such breaches affect patients.

Encourage risk reporting:  According to Poneman, almost half of healthcare organizations discovered a breach through an employee within the past two years. What’s more, nearly one-third of data breaches came to light due to patient complaints. It’s smart to encourage these reports, as IT staff can’t have eyes everywhere.

Disable laptop cameras and microphones:  Laptops generally come with a webcam and microphone, but at least in an enterprise setting, it may be better to disable these functions. Why? For one thing, attackers may be able to listen to private conversations through the microphone.

As I see it, the bottom line on all of these activities is to infuse security thinking into as many IT interactions as possible.  It may be trite to talk about a culture of security (it’s easier said than done, and too many organizations make empty promises) but such a culture can actually make a big impact on your security status.

To have the biggest impact, though, that culture has to extend all the way to the C-suite, and unfortunately, that rarely seems to happen. When I read research on how often healthcare organizations underspend on security, it seems pretty clear that many senior execs don’t take this issue as seriously as that should. And if the staggering level of health data breaches happening lately isn’t enough to scare them straight, I don’t know what will.

Creating Alliances with Large Health IT Vendors – Benefits and Challenges

Posted on June 13, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Healthcare Scene recently sat down with Nancy Hannan, Philips Relationship Director at Augusta University Health System (formerly known as Georgia Regents) to talk about their alliance with Philips Healthcare and the impact it’s had on their healthcare organization.

Along with talking about the benefits and challenges of creating a long term contract with a healthcare IT vendor, we also dive into the details of how medical device standardization has impacted their organization. Not to be left out, we also talk about how this relationship has impacted patients and doctors. If your organization is looking at how to standardize your medical equipment, this interview will give you some insight into creating a long term alliance with your vendor.

In the second part of my interview with Nancy Hannan, Philips Relationship Director at Augusta University Health System (formerly known as Georgia Regents) we discuss how they’re taking the lessons learned from the Philips alliance and applying them to their agreement with Cerner. We also talk about how cybersecurity is better having a vendor representative on site like they have with Philips.

It’s Time For A New HIE Model

Posted on April 25, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Over the decade or so I’ve been writing about HIEs, critics have predicted their death countless times – and with good reason. Though their supporters have never backed down, it’s increasingly clear that the model has many flaws, some of them quite possibly fatal.

One is the lack of a sustainable business model. Countless publicly-funded HIEs, jumpstarted by state or federal grants, have stumbled badly and closed their doors when the funding dried up. As it turns out, it’s quite difficult to get hospitals to pay for such services. Whether this is due to fears of sharing data with the competition or a simple reluctance to pay for something new, hospitals haven’t moved much on this issue.

Another reason HIEs aren’t likely to stay alive is that none can offer true interoperability, which diminishes the benefits they offer. Admittedly, some groups won’t concede this issue. For example, I was intrigued to see that DirectTrust, a collaborative embracing 145 health IT and provider organizations, is working to provide interoperability via Direct message protocols. But Direct messaging and true bilateral health information exchange are two different things. (I know, I’m a spoilsport.)

Yet another reason why HIEs have continued to struggle is due to variations in state privacy rules, which add another layer of complexity to managing HIEs. Simply complying with HIPAA can be challenging; adding state requirements to the mix can be a big headache. State laws vary as to when providers can disclose PHI, to whom it can be disclosed and for what purpose, and building an HIE that meets these requirements is a big deal.

Still, given that MACRA demands the industry achieve “widespread interoperability” by 2018, we have to have something in place that might work. One model, proposed by Dr. Donald Voltz, is to turn to a middleware solution. This approach, Voltz notes, has worked in industries like banking and retail, which have solved their data interoperability problems (at least to a greater degree than healthcare).

Voltz isn’t proposing that healthcare organizations rely on building middleware that connects directly to their proprietary EMR, but rather, that they build an independent solution. The idea isn’t incredibly popular yet — just 16% of hospital systems reported that they were considering middleware, according to Black Book – but the idea is gaining popularity, Voltz suggests. And given that hospitals face continued challenges in integrating new inputs, like mobile app and medical device data, next-generation middleware may be a good solution.

Other possible HIE alternatives include health record banks and clearinghouses. These have the advantage of being centralized, connected to yet independent of providers and relatively flexible. There are some substantial obstacles to substituting either for an HIE, such as getting consumers to consistently upload their records to the record banks. Still, it’s likely that neither would be as costly nor as resource-intensive as building EMR-specific interoperability.

That being said, none of these approaches are a pushbutton solution to data exchange problems. To foster health data sharing will take significant time and effort, and the transition to implementing any of these models won’t be easy. But if the existing HIE model is collapsing (and I contend this is the case) hospitals will need to do something. If you think the models I’ve listed don’t work, what do you suggest?

Are You Prepared For Healthcare Ransomware?

Posted on February 3, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Earlier this month, a Texas hospital was hit with a particularly loathsome virus.  Leaders at Mount Pleasant, Tx.-based Titus Regional Medical Center found out on January 15 that a “ransomware” virus had encrypted files on several of the medical center’s database servers, blocking access to EMR data as well as the ability to enter data into the system.

In this kind of attack, the malware author demands a financial ransom to be paid for freeing up the data. TRMC didn’t disclose how much money the attacker(s) demanded, but it may have been an immense sum, because the hospital apparently thought that bringing in pricey security consultants and enduring several days of downtime was preferable to paying up. Although, they also probably realized the slippery slope of paying the ransom and also there’s no guarantee those receiving the ransom money will actually permanently fix the problem.

It would be nice to think that this was just a passing fad, but researchers suggest that it’s not. In fact, US victims of ransomware reported losses of more than $18 million in 14 months, according to an FBI report issued in June.

According to one news report, the average ransomware demand is about $300 per consumer. The amount demanded goes up, however, when business or government organizations are involved. For example, when a series of small police departments in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Tennessee were hit with a ransomware attack tying up their key databases, they ended up paying between $500 to $750 to get back access to their data. One can only imagine what a savvy intruder familiar with the life-and-death demand for health information would charge to free up an EMR database or laboratory information system data store.

But the threat isn’t just to enterprise assets. Not only are hospital enterprise network attacks via ransomware likely to increase, these exploits could take place via wearables or medical devices in 2016, according to technology analyst firm Forrester Research. Such attacks don’t just use medical devices to reach databases; Forrester predicts that some ransomware attacks will disable the medical devices themselves.

Given how important mobile technology has become to healthcare, it’s worth noting that ransomware is increasingly targeting mobile devices as well. For example, a recent strain of Android virus known as Lockdroid ransomware is now afoot. While it has no direct healthcare implications, one of the things it does is threaten to send a user’s browsing history to friends and family unless they pay the ransom. The victim, who may get tricked into allowing malicious code to gain admin privileges on their device, could end up having their personal data — and perhaps data from an EMR app — sent wherever the attacker chooses.

It seems to me that the ransomware threat will push healthcare organizations to mirror their core data assets in new and heretofore unheard of ways. HIT departments will have to bring disaster recovery methods and network intrusion defenses to prevent the worst possible outcome — a hack that kills one or more patients — and quickly. Meanwhile, if a company specializing in protecting healthcare firms from ransomware doesn’t exist yet, I suspect one will exist by the end of 2016.

Under the Hood of Medical Devices

Posted on September 11, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Kevin Phillips, Vice President – Marketing and Product Management at CapsuleTech.
Value of Medical Device Data

When it comes to medical devices, most people think of patient monitoring and physiologic data such as HR, SPO2, respiration rate waveforms and physiologic alarms. But there’s a lot more “under the hood” of a device – a lot more than just physiologic data that, when applied in new ways, can contribute to patient safety efforts and help with operational efficiencies.

Under the hood are three types of data.  The first, and most often understood and used, is patient data that provides information on the physiologic status of the patient; a snapshot, if you will, of a patient’s condition at a given moment in time. The second type of data is treatment details.  These details provide a comprehensive view of treatments being administered to a patient, and include the names of drugs or anesthetic agents, drug concentration, the volume to be infused, or volume of air being delivered via a ventilator.  The third type of data is about the devices themselves. This information includes not only modes of operation, technical alarms, and battery level, but also data, such as firmware versions and unique device identifiers, that is useful to the clinical engineers responsible for maintaining these devices.

Of course, all of this data is meaningless without context.  This “contextual device data” can be added by external systems such as an EMR or by Capsule’s SmartLinx Medical Device Information System®. We define context as key information for each device: how the device is being used; where it is located; to which patient it is connected; and the identity of the primary clinician responsible for this patient. We also want to know information about the device itself including its unique device identifier, synchronized time (e.g. measurement time, device time, and NTP server time). Last, of course, are the clinical observations of the patient.

Today, only a fraction of this data…maybe 10%…is being used by a hospital; what is being used is typically only that data specified by the hospital by its EMR.  And while not all of the remaining 90% of the data is useable in some cases, there is a fair amount of significant value if mined and delivered to the appropriate system or user when it is needed.  Some examples include:

  • Alarm Management Systems – Well-documented patient safety risks posed by the failure to adequately address medical device alarms management by publications such as ECRI has led the Joint Commission to create a National Patient Safety Goal. This goal requires all hospitals to have a policy in place to manage alarms appropriately by 1/01/2016.  This has driven a demand for medical device data like near real-time notification of high priority physiologic and technical alarms from each device.  The art to these data integrations is close collaboration to deliver the proper alarms so not to overwhelm the clinician with nuisances (low priority alarms).
  • Device utilization – While solutions exist to help identify the location of expensive, high-maintenance devices, determining which devices are in use is difficult. Providing timely and appropriate device data to biomedical teams can ensure optimal device management, use and health, easing patient throughput and contributing to patient safety and care.
  • Clinical Decision Support Systems – Whether hospitals have created their own algorithms or purchased a turn-key solution, CDSS’s require high frequency physiologic medical device measurements to properly power their specific algorithms to enable them to identity patients at risk of sepsis or deterioration.
  • Patient Surveillance Applications – Automated patient surveillance helps clinicians to remotely wade through vast information stores to quickly discern data of the greatest value. With the addition of real-time device data, patient surveillance applications can better identify data clusters and trends consistent with patient deterioration and specific disease conditions, prompting clinical intervention.
  • Asset Management – While asset-tracking solutions can help identify the current location of devices, determining which devices are in use or underutilized is difficult. Devices offer a range of built-in operational checks, or support remote monitoring to ensure device readiness and status of any required supplies. The availability of this data to biomedical teams will ensure optimal device management and health, easing patient throughput and boosting patient safety and care.

So what’s under the hood of all of your medical devices?  Probably a whole lot more that you ever imagined that can be of immense value throughout your hospital. Why don’t you take a look today to see what value can be derived.

About Kevin Phillips
Kevin Phillips is the Vice President – Marketing and Product Management at CapsuleTech with over 10 years of experience in various roles within the healthcare, medical device and diagnostic industries. His career has been focused on new product development, product marketing, market analysis, strategic alliances, corporate operations, and sales. Prior to joining Capsule, Mr. Phillips held positions at TransMedics and PathoGenetix (formerly US Genomics). His career has been focused on new product development, product marketing, market analysis, strategic alliances, corporate operations, and sales.