By Jim Fedele
In my opinion, asset management is one of the top responsibilities biomeds have in an organization. Guiding and recommending purchases for our customers is probably one of the most frequent requests I get. Our processes ensure I know and have assisted (most of the time) in any equipment purchase. This ensures that we are purchasing equipment that we can service, that it is standardized throughout our facilities, and that it is from a partnering vendor.
Being included in the process minimizes serviceability surprises and allows for an addition look at what is being requested. However, for the purpose of this article I would like to discuss the pro and cons of the standardization of equipment purchases from a specific vendor.
I will always be a proponent of standardizing equipment purchases by vendor and model. The company that employees me vehemently drives standardization. Having the same patient monitor throughout facilities has many benefits. It eliminates the need for nurses to be trained on multiple devices which reduces user errors. It allows for better pricing, and serviceability issues are easier to manage and solve. Today, nurses do not always work on the same unit or even in the same facility, feeling the pressure to be efficient; nurses are often moved around where needed. When monitors are the same everywhere, a nurse can easily adapt and not have to worry about how to use the equipment.
From a pricing perspective, everyone knows the more volume you purchase the better the pricing. Vendors always sharpen their pencils when they know that they will get all of your business. Service issues are easier to manage too, from spare parts to training. Having to only accommodate one type of monitor makes life simpler. As I think about some of the problems we have had lately, I can guarantee getting the vendor to solve them would have been more difficult if we only had five monitors instead of the 45 we have. The loyalty and cooperation that a vendor will provide when they know you have committed to only purchasing monitors from them is many times better than those on which you only have a couple of devices. To standardize makes sense and is the right thing to do, but there is a downside.
The downside to standardization is, “You do not know what you do not know.” What I mean is that when you lock into a certain vendor and model you may be missing out. Competition is the greatest asset we have in this country; everyone is always trying to improve their products to be able to dethrone the market leader. That means if a competitor has “built a better mouse trap,” you may not even be aware.
I have many priorities competing for my time. When a competing vendor wants to demo a new monitor that is not part of my standardization plan, I do not choose to meet with or talk to them. Really, who has the time to listen to someone’s product pitch when you know you won’t be purchasing it? However, after some reflection on this, I may be missing out on some knowledge. I have noticed, at times, that the market leader’s product development becomes stagnant, for whatever reason. Meanwhile, the competition is working hard to develop a product that mitigates the weakness of the leader. Vendors are very good at pointing out the other’s weaknesses, sometimes it is minor but sometimes it is not. It may not be something I even thought of as a weakness. I am learning that there is value in at least hearing what other vendors have to offer.
Today, we live in a world where advances in technology come at a feverish pace. This makes the time right for a lot of big improvements in medical technology. Add in the necessity that equipment communicates to the electronic medical record (EMR) and there are a lot of new developments. I experienced this firsthand when we were trying to integrate our old monitoring standard to our EMR. Due to the age and lack of advancement from the vendor, it was going to be a very long and expensive process to get our monitors to talk to the system. This forced us to make a change to our “standard” company. Our new vendor can seamlessly dump into the EMR.
The HTM manager’s world is full of multiple priorities and emergencies. It is hard to find time to listen to a vendor that, in our minds, has no chance of selling a product to us. However, in the future, I will be making time so I can learn what is new and question our “standardized” vendor when I see an advancement they do not have.
– Jim Fedele, CBET, is the senior director of clinical engineering for UPMC. He manages six Susquehanna Health hospitals. He has 30 years of HTM experience and has worked for multiple service organizations.
