The integration opportunity: a plan for reliable device data

In a single modern USI, it is estimated that tens of thousands of data points are generated by a single patient every day, for fans, Pumps IV and other medical devices. This information must move from the device to the patient’s electronic health file (DSE), and the quality of the connections that transfer these data is essential. Although essential, these connections are often complex and can vary in reliability. The real challenge in health care technology is not a lack of data; It is a lack of reliable data in the DSE.

These complex interfaces have challenges that require careful management. The solution requires a practical and clinical approach to ensure that data on clinicians are precise and complete.

The high cost of data gaps

While data standards like HL7 and Fir provide a common language, DSE suppliers build their platforms on owner data architectures. This lack of normalization through technical foundations forces hospitals to manage a wide variety of connections, many of which are point -to -point interfaces.

The result? Data gaps that may have a negative impact on clinical data integrity and patient care. For example, two different manufacturers of fans can each require tailor -made interfaces or certain models may not even have the possibility of integrating. Each unique connection is another potential point of data failure, and each represents an opportunity for improvement.

In the example above, the inability to interface some of the fans of a level 3 factory obliges nurses to leave the bedside and manually enter the data. While clinicians always prioritize the patient, this additional step adds to the workload of a nurse, takes time of direct observation of patients and can complicate the process of clinical decision -making time in intensive care.

The challenge of the data of medical devices extends beyond the walls of the hospital. As home hospital programs develop, health systems must now integrate data from the devices provided by patients such as weight scales, blood pressure wrists and pulse oximeters. These basic consumption technologies provide new obstacles to connectivity and additional points of sensitivity to patient care.

An interfunctional approach to the integration of medical devices

The appropriate integration of the device is more than a technical task; It requires coordination between several teams. The most successful health systems treat integration both as a technical construction and a clinical transformation. This approach ensures that the data is complete, usable and usable at the time of care.

The right team at the start reduces risks, prevents delays and provides solutions that meet clinical and operational needs. A solid interfunctional team brings together people who include devices and systems, and how they affect care in real time. Here are five roles to include in the medical devices integration team.

• Clinical chiefs WHO aligns the data flow with care provision and make sure that technology supports, rather than disturbances, workflows.
• DSE and interface specialists WHO configures and maintains the technical connections between devices and DSE, which guarantees the accuracy and reliability of the data.
• Biomedical and network teams The WHO supports physical infrastructure and the connectivity of devices are essential for stability and availability.
• Cybersecurity experts which protect patient data and reduce risks in the communication of the device.
• Application analysts and educators who Confirm that the data is positioned where and how clinicians need it, and that staff use it effectively.

This structure works because clinical and technical experts collaborate early, before deadlines and suppliers are defined. It prevents expensive errors, strengthens internal property and prepares organizations for future needs such as artificial intelligence (AI), remote monitoring and replacement of inherited devices.

More importantly, this approach improves patient care. With data of reliable devices in the DSE, clinicians make faster and better informed decisions and spend less time to help out and more time with patients.

Common traps in medical devices integration projects

Careful planning when health systems are embarking on medical devices integration projects are often overlooked in two key areas. The first may seem more without consequences than it is actually: belonging to the project team.

As indicated by the list of roles above, a clinically directed LED interfunctional team approach is essential during projects to integrate medical devices to fill the data gaps, overcome the traps of the common project, finish optimal tests and ensure appropriate monitoring. Often, integration projects can be improved by ensuring that the members of the project team represent all potentially affected workflows. Without some members of the clinical team, for example, a project team cannot only engage in superficial tests. This means that they can confirm that a new connection is active but may not check if it has a negative impact on other clinical systems or workflows. This problem can be aggravated by delayed clinical contributions, where primary line staff who will use technology is only brought for for a final signature, long after taking basic design decisions.

Finally, the organization must establish an integrated peripheral management plan. This includes asking who is responsible for the interface and what measures should be taken during downtime. For critical devices, which, on clinical and computer teams, has performance and reliability? If the device ceases to send data or the DSE experiences downtime, what measures would a nurse take immediately and practically?

How to measure value

We must assess standards like HL7 and Fir not only by their technical specifications, but by their ability to provide precise and real -time data to clinicians. Their effectiveness depends on the stability of the network and the infrastructure. For example, predictive septicemia models are based on coherent and high quality interface data to provide early alerts that improve the results.

In the end, the key question can be: which costs more and / or introduces more risks – a new fully integrated anesthesia machine, or the continuous operational cost and the clinical burden of supporting an obsolete system with unreliable data?

The true value of the integration of the system is ultimately demonstrated by its practical impact on the provision of care: fewer documentation errors, faster clinical decisions and more time with patients.

Photo: Invincible_bulldog, Getty Images

This message appears through the Medcity influencers program. Anyone can publish their point of view on business and innovation in health care on Medcity News through Medcity influencers. Click here to find out how.