Design Con 2015
Breaking News
News & Analysis

FDA Charts Mobile Health Progress

Targeting wireless and security
12/3/2013 05:01 PM EST
17 comments
NO RATINGS
< Previous Page 2 / 2
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
DrQuine
User Rank
CEO
Re: Statutory Warning
DrQuine   12/9/2013 10:05:49 PM
NO RATINGS
The concept of a disclaimer is rational - but I wonder how much protection it really offers the patient. Most people have neither the time nor the money to ask their physician for a second opinion on everything they learn from the Internet or their mobile device. In reality, therefore, it would be nice if the advice provided had some assurance of accuracy and some indication of adverse signs that should trigger an escalation to a physician (or the emergency room).

Greybeard1
User Rank
Rookie
Re: The other side of the coin
Greybeard1   12/9/2013 9:25:16 AM
NO RATINGS
Actually, WLANS can be used clinically, if configured propoerly.  Some patient monitoring vendors are using WLAN technology for wireless telemetry.  The trick is to apply ythe technology appropriately.  Steve Baker and Davis Hoaglund published an excellent paper on this.  Additionally IEC 60601-1-2 provides guidance on medical grade WLAN deployment.  What usually happens is that hospital IT sets themselves up as the hospital technical experts; my examples are indicative of what happens when the clinicians and hospital upper management actually believe them.

My runing joke on this is that when yopu say 'hertz' to hospital IT, the first thing that comes to their mind is 'rental car'.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: The other side of the coin
Bert22306   12/8/2013 6:09:36 PM
NO RATINGS
These are examples of devices for home used applied inappropriately in a hospital setting. The wireless LAN being the perfect example. (I don't understand the first example, but it sounds like something similar.) It would be a shame if such inappropriate applications were enough to squelch this whole industry.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Re: The other side of the coin
junko.yoshida   12/5/2013 11:00:02 PM
NO RATINGS
Thanks for chiming in, Greybeard1. These are great cautionary tales (or actually horrifying tales) from the field. You would think that hospitals are knowledgable enough to deal with the danger of using non-medical wireless devices...but apparently these things could happen.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Re: which ones?
junko.yoshida   12/5/2013 10:53:25 PM
NO RATINGS
Regulations exist for reasons -- especially when it comes to the safety matters. Let's not casually repeat such a rhetoric as "the government getting in their way."

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: The other side of the coin
rick merritt   12/5/2013 8:23:21 PM
NO RATINGS
Hi Greybeard,

Interesting stories from the field. Let's talk ab out a blog sometime.

Reach me at rick.merritt@ubm.com

Greybeard1
User Rank
Rookie
The other side of the coin
Greybeard1   12/5/2013 1:20:13 PM
NO RATINGS
i worked as a biomedical/clinical engineer for the VA for many years.  Much of my focus was on medical technology related patient incidents, especially patient injuries or deaths with a national impact.  One of the more consistent problems I ran into was that clinicians would start relying on non-medical technology for medical decisions - usually with devastating patient resullts. 

Two examples: 

1.  A hospital bought a wireless communication system that interfaced with the patient alarm system.  It was intended as secondary notification, since it had no escalation or follow-up process, but the nurses ended up using it as the primary system.  As a result, when a patient alarm went off and the secondary system didn't escalate, the patient died.

2.  Another hospital used a home built WLAN to communicate medication information via laptops on the med carts.  The staff started using the laptops for charting and other clinical uses.  This quickly overwhelmed the WLAN; when in-house IT tried to resolve the problem, they actually made it worse.  The entire system collapsed, forcing the nurses to manage all the meds by hand.


I have many more

The point - it's well and good for vendors to criticize the FDA for being slow.  From the clinical side - people will use an unapproved device for life critical decisions if they can - and he results are usually dangerous.  Also, i recommend checking with the user community in the EU - the articles I've read indicate they wish the EU's approval process was more like the FDA's - Too many devices are approved that shouldn't be.

 

zewde yeraswork
User Rank
Blogger
Re: which ones?
zewde yeraswork   12/4/2013 9:17:05 AM
NO RATINGS
I suppose it is an advantage to know that any and all apps in medical use have gone through a proper process in order to determine whether they're appropriate for use in that way. But it's likely, as part of a trade-off, that American vendors and manufacturers will continue to complain as long as the US government gets in their way with painstaking regulations.

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
CEO
Statutory Warning
prabhakar_deosthali   12/4/2013 7:01:24 AM
NO RATINGS
If all those medical apps are forced to have a statutory message saying

" The results provided by this App  are indicative only. Please consult your doctor for the final diagnosis of the symptoms"


then majority of the concerns of a potential risk to the patients can be addressed. The patient using the app is always advised to visit a doctor to take the second opinion when the situation warrants.

And this regulation can be effected more quickly than the time consuming certification of the Apps.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: which ones?
rick merritt   12/4/2013 12:03:04 AM
NO RATINGS
@daleste: I would be very surprised if the FDA would try to regulate fitness devices given what I heard today.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week