Is everyone aware of the NCCLS POCT 1-A connectivity standards? They have been adopted from the Connectivity Industry Consortium only since November last year. Surely it makes sense to wait for a bit until connectivity software is re-written with POCT 1-A in mind. While the Standard is purely voluntary, I can't help thinking that any writers of new versions of their connectivity software must surely adopt at least part of the Standard- ability to retrieve data from third party instrumentation is most important.
It makes no sense to purchase multiple connectivity software specific to each instrument manufacturer where in the near future, one version may communicate with different manufacturer's meters.
This is taken from the NCCLS http://www.nccls.org/approved.htm page:
"POCT1-A Point-of-Care Connectivity; Approved Standard This document provides the framework for engineers to design devices, work stations, and interfaces that allow multiple types and brands of point-of-care devices to communicate bidirectionally with access points, data concentrators, and laboratory information systems from a variety of vendors. ($65 for member organizations; $105 for nonmembers)"
Cheers,
Chris Budgen (Mr)
POCT Coordinator
Canterbury Health Laboratories
Christchurch
New Zealand
Internal ext. 81850
DDI: 03 364 1850
Cell phone: 025 973 645
email: [log in to unmask]
===========================
>>> [log in to unmask] 16/05/02 19:52:34 >>>
One disadvantage with having multiple data managers for different POCT systems is the cost of multiple interfaces to your LIMS - quite a large sum for some LIMS like ours.
Doug Hirst
Bradford
>>> [log in to unmask] 5/15/02 4:33:05 pm >>>
I know the theory, but I'm not so convinced the gains outweigh the
costs. I don't think it would be too much of a problem to have one
control system for eg blood gas analysers and another for blood glucose
analysers. Having dedicated software and even hardware for this fits
well with 'total service contracts" with suppliers which include
equipment, training, support, consumables ad information systems. Of
course they should all relay completed patient reports to the
appropriate LIMS or EPR. Using the same network and identifiers really
does give benefits!
Dr Jonathan Kay
On Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 04:00 , Frost, Stephen wrote:
> One of the principles of Connectivity is that equipment from more than
> one supplier can be integrated into the same data-management platform.
>
> We are looking into a proposal for linking Roche Informs and Datacare
> via our hospital network for tranfer of QA and/or patient data. We also > are looking at connecting Aboott I-stats to their lab computer system > for the same reasons. Our urine strip readers are from yet another
> supplier.
>
> I would be pleased to here from any of you have so far connected Roche
> equipment to the Abbott computer programme or visa versa (or indeed any > other combination of multi-supplier connectivity). In principle it
> should be easy. Is it?
>
> Regards
>
> Steve
>
> Dr Stephen Frost
> Biochemistry Dept
> The Princess Royal Hospital
> Lewes Rd
> Haywards Heath
> West Sussex
> UK
>
**********************************************************************
** This email and attachments have been scanned for content and viruses
and is believed to be clean **
This email or attachments may contain confidential or legally
privileged information intended for the sole use of the addressee(s).
Any use, redistribution, disclosure, or reproduction of this message,
except as intended, is prohibited. If you received this email in error,
please notify the sender and remove all copies of the message,
including any attachments. Any views or opinions expressed in this
email (unless otherwise stated) may not represent those of Canterbury
District Health Board
**********************************************************************
|