Has anyone set up a standard protocol for medical devices that use WiFi networks to transmit data, specifically responsibility and lines of demarcation between EBME dept and IT dept ?

In some (well organised?) hospitals, the IT department is the EBME (biomed) department!

In other (lesser?) hospitals they just fight each other.

And in some ... they have seemingly never met!

Meanwhile, Standards (many and various) exist regarding the use of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth (and all the other technologies) in healthcare environments. Like ideas, they are everywhere; you just pick as many as you need, and (in this case, perhaps) the one that suits you best!

Struth ! BIG subject. (and how are things in my "place of birth"?)

I hardly know where to start or, frankly, if I have sufficient knowledge on each side of this to say. They are (sorry again Geoff) NOT the same. Biomed is not IT. The lines are blurred at best but I might put forward that, biomed is patient connected, IT is networks and everything beyond. Biomeds should not run IT and IT should not run Biomed However, what is most nessesary is that a cooperative stance is taken. Fighting is not going to do our "clients" (the poor bastards who are sick in bed) any good.

Talk to your IT people and discuss your needs, they don't actually have two heads.

Wrong! When it comes to the Hospital Domain ... the Biomeds are the Gods of Technology! All others must bow down (or, at least, defer)! Ha, ha.

... but not only in jest. Biomeds (usually) have the "required" mindset (for patient care). MS Certified types generally don't. Or, have I just been "unlucky"?

The true Clinical Engineer should have technical overview of the complete hospital. Including computer networks ... and even the elevators (lifts, if you prefer). As I have been saying for years (the last thirty, at least) ... someone has to give a s**t (and that someone should be the biomed, in my opinion).

Anyway, what's the big deal about IT? It's just kit like everything else!

PS: as you can probably tell, I've never been big on demarcation.

We treat IT the same as the other branches of engineering, biomedical until we reach the wall, beyond the wall, electrical, medical gas etc. but I must say we do cooperate very well when required.

Yes, that's the traditional (and sensible) approach.

So, what about medical/computer kit (where do you draw the line)? "Off the wall", surely (with computer networks, just like medical gas pipelines ... safely hidden behind the wall - usually)!

Or, put another way ... who looks after the printers in places like Lung Function, ICU (on the central monitoring system) et al?

As I keep saying, surely what we want are Hospital Technical Services (that is, integrated ... with the biomed in charge, of course)!

As the printers are networked, they are left with IT. Printers with the equipment are BME. Medical/Computer equipment i.e. ultrasound machines, the networking side (ethernet, IP address, image transfer) is left with IT, the diagnostic side is BME.
Integrated as far as you can go, but IT has other roles away from BME.

And (as we all know) BME has other roles away from IT!

Plenty of debate on this!

I would agree with Geoff and technologists should have a complete understanding of the system, while maintenance of service may be the domain of IT , EBME will have to be involved and work co-operatively with IT to ensure patient safety when using new telecomm tech.
A complete integration of hospital technical services may never fully be possible due to line of accountability , a share co-operative response is necessary.

Not so. I was involved with two (at least) successful examples (out in Saudi Arabia, back in the '80's and '90's).

But yes, the will has to be there. These days, there seem to be far too many people hanging around hospitals* whose primary interest is that of simply building their own careers (empires, whatever). It didn't used to be like that, back in the (happy) days when hospitals were what you could call "folksy places"!

"Technologist"? What's that? And who is IT accountable to then? Surely they are a Law unto Themselves?

* And who have no business being there, in my opinion.