Despite life-saving capabilities, medical devices may be causing medical errors and preventable deaths because they don’t share data, says a new survey.
Marie Thibault
.jpg)
Nurses are frustrated by the lack of interoperability between medical devices and believe it to be the source of at least some medical errors. A survey released this week found that 74% of nurses surveyed strongly agree that it is burdensome to coordinate data from medical devices and 50% of nurses said they have witnessed a medical error due to lack of device coordination.
The survey seeks to draw a connection between the estimated hundreds of thousands of deaths due to medical errors each year and the lack of interoperability. A majority of the nurses surveyed said they think having devices that communicate and share data would make patient care more valuable and cut down on errors.
“Missed Connections: A Nurses Survey on Interoperability and Improved Patient Care,” was commissioned by the Gary and Mary West Health Institute and conducted by Harris Poll. The study notes that the Journal of Patient Safety estimates 210,000–440,000 hospital deaths each year are the result of medical errors.
Nurses are spending a large portion of their time on medical devices. Of those surveyed, 41% said they spend three hours or more each shift working with medical devices, including looking at electronic medical records, using bedside devices, troubleshooting device issues, transcribing data, teaching patients and families about the devices, and managing alarms. One nurse quoted in the survey said, “[transcribing data] takes way too much time for the nurses to adequately care for the patient.”
Most (91%) of the nurses said that they could spend more one-on-one time with patients if they didn’t spend so much time dealing with devices. And 60% said medical errors could be significantly reduced if devices all shared data automatically.
The West Health Institute uses the survey findings to call upon FDA to issue draft guidance on interoperability, originally slated for release in 2014. The group also asks the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to add medical device sharing and communication to its Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap.
The survey included responses from 526 full-time nurses in January 2015 and data was weighted to reflect the make up of the U.S. adult population.
Marie Thibault is the associate editor at MD+DI. Reach her at marie.thibault@ubm.com and on Twitter @medtechmarie.
[Image courtesy of IMAGERYMAJESTIC/FREEDIGITALPHOTOS.NET]
Interoperability of what
We continue to be somewhat loose in defining interoperability. There are at least three different uses of this term, each with different potential benefits, complexities and risks. One is medical devices sending data to the EHR. This has value in terms of a complete record, although it may be that much of this data is never looked at. A second use of interoperability is EHRs sharing data with each other. A third is medical devices communicating with each other in some sort of closed loop control. This has conceptual merit with the limitations of properly defining and implementing the conversation, especially if more than one vendor is involved.
Given three (or more)meanings, it is imperative that any use of "interoperability" include clarity on what is interoperating with what.
A different issue with the cited report is whether or not nurse's opinions properly define the factual situation.
Agreed—in this instance it is medical device interoperability
Thanks Will, I agree that it's necessary to indicate which type of interoperability we're talking about here. This survey deals specifically with the ability of medical devices to communicate data with each other.
Though it does seem that the nurses in the survey deal frequently with EHRs, the call for inclusion of medical device sharing in the Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap makes it clear that medical devices are the focus here.
Point taken, and I'll strive for clarity with this term in future articles!