Medical Device Integration – Does it make a difference?

Based on recent findings from the HIMSS Analytics Database, only one-third of 825 hospitals surveyed indicated they are interfacing their medical devices to their EMR, as noted in this chart Medical Devices Reasons-10-11-2011. Yet, the ability to capture flow sheet data and changes in vital signs within the EMR is a meaningful use stage 1 requirement, leaving us pondering why the uptake of interfaced medical devices is not higher.

A colleague in Australia recently asked why the integration of medical devices is not part of stage 3 or 4 of the HIMSS Analytics EMR Adoption Model. Her reasoning being that it’s easier to implement than CPOE, nursing documentation and physician documentation, and it makes physicians happy because it reduces the amount of data input required.

After all, it doesn’t require new system purchases like those required for CPOE, nursing documentation and physician documentation. Hence, it should be less expensive to implement.

Is the integration of medical devices a critical component of your IT strategy?
Do you agree with my colleague in Australia, that it’s simple to implement and should be a core aspect of early stages of EMR adoption?

Share your thoughts here on the HIMSS Blog.

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.

About Michelle Glenn

Michelle Glenn is Senior Director, Product Management, for HIMSS Analytics.

View all posts by Michelle Glenn →

5 Responses to Medical Device Integration – Does it make a difference?

John Zaleski says:

October 12, 2011 at 12:36 pm

It makes a difference if (1) you are interested in obtaining accurate, complete and rich data on patients at the bedside to support bedside clinical decision making; (2) if you are interested in maintaining complete and accurate records on acutely ill patients from the OR through the ICU; (3) if you are interested in integrating alarm-type information and notifications into your enterprise-wide communication and networking infrastructure to support current and future automatic notifications of technical and clinical alarms within your infrastructure; (4) if you are interested in taking the first steps necessary to meet the stage 3 requirements for Meaningful Use; (5) if you are concerned about reducing the likelihood of errors caused by inaccurate recording of vitals and related information necessary for order entry, medication administration, and general patient care management… and the list goes on. You cannot control what you cannot measure, and these are components of the most basic measurements available on patients.

Michelle Glenn says:

October 12, 2011 at 8:06 pm

John,
Thank you – this is the kind of information we need.

sjdmd says:

October 12, 2011 at 8:40 pm

Incredibly important. We did it more than two years ago in the ER (115,000 annual visits) and in the OR–directly integrated into the local (Best of Breed) EHRs. Coming soon to our ICUs where it will integrate into our general inpatient EHR. Care of sick patients is about monitoring of care and titration of therapies. Rounding and reading VS every 2-4-8 hours isn’t what’s needed and realistically even with one-to-one nursing in an ICU or 2:1 in an ER Trauma/Cardiac bay there’s not enough time to transcribe VS.

Michelle Glenn says:

October 17, 2011 at 10:27 am

David,
Thank you for sharing your integration strategy and reasoning. It would be great to hear a little about the biggest challenges you faced and continue to face as you move forward with your strategy (funding, priorities, skill set, etc.).

- sjdmd says:
  
  October 17, 2011 at 11:59 am
  
  For the details you’re seeking this is not the best forum.
  
  In general staging by clinical area has been a strategy to both manage funding and personnel resources and secondarily to match up with EHR evolution. Physiological Monitoring vendors’ technology is pretty nice for 1990 and not so robust for today’s environment. This drives the need for middleware software and sometimes hardware. Regardless, work flow changes for end users are required, but delivering in the ED led to a desire for the technology in the OR and then Surgical ICU and then other ICUs. (This is a telegraphic history/strategy of implementation pathway).
  
  Skillset in the ED was enhanced by upgrading MonitorTech role. Emergency physicians wanted and now value many sets of VS: “VS are Vital.” is the mantra.
  
  /Steven J. Davidson, MD, MBA, FACEP, FACPE
  Chief Medical Informatics Officer
  Maimonides Medical Center
  Brooklyn, NY