In my 6th Sept 2010 post I said my posts would focus on the review and update of the MBA dissertation, specifically Chapter 6 (Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations). Here goes…
Before I start it is probably a good idea to provide a few of caveats:
1. The Disclaimer of this BLOG applies.
2. I will endeavour to make the posts concise rather than verbose!
3. When embarking on writing the original dissertation the plan was to entitle it “Hypothesis: Medical Device manufacturer applied or embedded RFID has NO benefits to Patient Safety over existing AIDC technologies, e.g. Bar Codes.” But my supervisor wisely advised me that it is almost impossible to prove that something has “NO benefits” and that I should approach this with an open mind! I will endeavour to take this approach in reviewing and updating Chapter 6 (Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations)!
NOTE: Original text from dissertation will be shown in italics.
Discussion
“6.1… the ideal aim of this dissertation was to definitively prove or disprove the hypothesis:
“Medical Device manufacturer applied or embedded RFID has benefits to Patient Safety over existing AIDC technologies, e.g. Bar Codes.”
However, it was anticipated that, due to the range and complexity of [medical devices (MDs)]…and the complexity of the healthcare market…doing so was improbable.
The author believes this to be the case; the hypothesis has not been definitively proven or disproved, but a number of conclusions and recommendations can be drawn based on the research findings. These conclusions and recommendations relate to the different elements of the hypothesis; therefore, the following discussion focuses on each element separately.”
Firstly I think it is useful to amend the term “Medical Device” in the hypothesis to “Medical Product” so as to cover both medical devices and pharmaceuticals:
“Hypothesis: Medical Product manufacturer applied or embedded RFID has benefits to Patient Safety over existing AIDC technologies, e.g. Bar Codes.”
I still believe the hypothesis has not been definitively proven or disproved for medical products and to support that belief I will repeat the approach taken with the original paper, namely each element of the hypothesis will be discussed separately (i.e. in separate BLOG posts), followed by a review and update of the original conclusions and recommendations.
6.1.1 “…RFID has benefits to Patient Safety…”
Today patient safety is a key driver, not “the” key driver and it is almost always linked to improving supply chain efficiency, in that supply chain efficiency is seen as one way of improving patient safety. For example, GS1, the standards organisation’s Mission for Healthcare “…is to lead the Healthcare sector to the successful development and implementation of global standards… to enhance patient safety and supply chain efficiencies.”
But what about RFID, has the situation changed in regards to the theory that applied or embedded RFID will lead to greater patient safety?
In terms of case studies the number has increased but they have continued to focus on supply chain efficiency and …have not progressed through the chain to the patient… and therefore …the cause and effect link is still based on hypothesis.
This view is supported by a research report (April 2009), commissioned by the European Commission (EC) (Study on the requirements and options for Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Application in Healthcare), that details the opportunities for, and barriers to, the deployment of this technology in European healthcare. It says that despite being a useful tool in logistics and operational management (i.e. supply chain) it is “less successful in patient care and quality of care improvement”.
Another initiative, part funded by the EC and concluded in August 2009, which received global visibility, was the BRIDGE project (Building Radio frequency IDentification for the Global Environment). Relevant to this context is Work Package 6 (WP6) Pharma Traceability, particularly the case study that states “An over-arching conclusion of the pilot is that full supply chain traceability systems in the open, cross border supply chain in the European Pharmaceutical sector (and undoubtedly other continents too) is entirely feasible…” but not solely with RFID, “…The use of open system information standards together with the hybrid environment of data carriers (GS1 Data Matrix [a bar code] and RFID) enables maximum interoperability”.
Therefore, RFID has benefits to patient safety still remains an assumption; indeed a more efficient supply chain employing, both bar codes and RFID, is also an assumption. But, it is certain that the interest, and potential for growth in use of RFID in healthcare, will continue, e.g.: see Securing Pharma article “South Korea gets behind RFID tagging” (April 2010).
The next “MBA Revisited” post considers “Medical Device manufacturer applied or embedded RFID…”
The best hypothesis I have seen related to RFID tags and patient safety is the dispensing of a drug with a passive chip that can be activated for recalls. The same would be true for medical devices – a defect found in a specific production lot could trigger a notification on implatables or color change on the tag for non implantables. Not sure how it would work, but it was a concept that I found intriging.
Interesting indeed.
It reinforces the link between supply chain efficiency (albeit ‘reverse logistics’/recall) and patient safety again.
Could see some privacy issues emerging, even if a worthy idea: those with the tagged implant, that some outside party can activate the tag for recalls?!