Tricky, isn’t it?



As with all procurements it's easier if you can move that sort of improvement into the specifications rather than having to show the benefits in the business case.



I’d include:

* The avoided staff cost of entering patient and operator ID by hand, but that depends on your autoidentification model.

* The avoided staff cost of recording results by hand. (Do you already have an EPR across the organisation?)

* The avoided staff cost of going to the machine for maintenance, QC etc. 

* The risk reduction in having the results available to the next HCP who needs them.

* There may be some benefits in being able to take an instrument down remotely  if it’s performance goes off, but much of that is built-in nowadays.

* The reduced cost of staff training because you can concentrate it where it's needed and not where it isn’t.



Jonathan



PS: The biggest connected PoCT system for glucose (and ketones) that I know is the one we built in the Oxford hospitals.





> On 13 May 2020, at 15:45, Divina Bunoan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 

> Hi all,

> We are going out to tender this year for our glucose meter & strip

> contract.

> We would like to introduce connectivity meters to replace the current devices.  As this will involve

> increased costs over replacing with non-connected meters, does anyone

> have any useful data / evidence that would help a business case?  I am

> aware of the governance aspects & advantages but I suspect we will be

> required to show a cost benefit over & above this. 

> 





########################################################################



To unsubscribe from the ACB-POCT list, click the following link:

https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ACB-POCT&A=1