Hi Everyone

I have commenced a dissertation as part of my MSc in Biomedical Engineering. Having spent some time reading the many posts on this forum I can see there is much discussion regarding biomed databases.
I have decided to base my dissertation on the evaluation of various off-the-shelf database systems. In order to complete my dissertation I require the opinions of as many engineers as possible and I would be extremely grateful if you all could spare a few minutes to complete the poll I have created.

Thank you and best regards
Damian

Good luck with your thesis, Damian.

But I notice that your survey didn't mention such "real world" considerations as:-

1) Stand-alone
2) Networked
3) Web-based

... and (dare I mention it):-

1) Cost of implementation
2) Licensing considerations
3) Ease of implementation
4) Likely implementation time-scale
5) Quality (and cost) of support

Also:-

1) Ease of transporting previous data!
2) Ease of configurability to local needs and preferences

And (lastly) if you run out of steam (words, whatever), you might like to consider:-

1) The paperless system (does it actually exist?)
2) Mobile solutions (systems on hand-held devices etc.)
3) Integration with contemporary medical test equipment
4) Integration with tracking technology (RFID et al)

Thanks Geoff

In my thesis I will likely cover many of the topics you listed in your post. Any ideas how to get the cost of different systems? I have contacted many system developers in the past but got no replies.

Best Regards
Damian

Yes, I have remarked on this before. If their products are such amazing good value, you would think they would be proud to list their prices, or at least their price structure, would you not?

You may find that the best you can hope for are some "ball-park" prices relating to what members of this forum may be aware of. They won't have paid themselves, of course. But someone must know what the Trusts fork out.

My own suspicion is that they hide their prices because they are so outrageous!

I know they are outrageous, I have had quotes from GE and Fluke in the past, as with the famous Taskmaster there are some ' free' systems out there. As I have mentioned before my problem here is IT, this is another question for your thesis, Who controls the system IT or Biomed?

That's the trouble with medical equipment, almost by definition (most of) it is used in hospitals.

And we all know what that means ... "politics", and all the rest.

But, whilst acknowledging that is Damian's perspective (ie, hospitals), let's remember that there are other scenarios as well:-

1) Private workshops
2) Manufacturers' (vendors') service departments
3) Mobile service engineers
4) Contracting companies
5) So-called MES companies
6) Blokes working in cow-sheds ... and all the rest.

"so called MES companies"? Do you not believe that third party managed equipment service is real or viable?

(off to bed now so I'll see what response arrives over night)

Oh dear, I can see that this is getting off topic again

and double "oh".... hi Damian, how's things in NI? I'm a Derry boy me-self though long since gone far away

[sigh ... here we go again]

What I meant was:- people have different (various, if you prefer) understandings about what "MES" means!

Maybe we need a poll about that!

We use f2 from infohealth, its not listed but we certainly wont be looking to change ship at any point in the forseable future.

More database links here... http://www.ebme.co.uk/products/index.php?cat_id=24

Yes, it's a pity that f2 wasn't included. Especially as they are a sponsor of this forum!

It was something else that I had been meaning to mention to Damian:- that a few of the contemporary systems have close affiliations with certain NHS hospitals (or groups of hospitals).

I believe that E-MAT started off that way, as well. Who knows, they probably began as "home grown" (as most of them do, anyway) to be taken up by a software house.

I notice that "home grown" doesn't do very well in Damian's poll, but (as I have pointed out to Damian) the NHS is hardly "home grown" territory. Not these days, anyway.

Believe it or not I had I list of systems when I was creating the poll and the Infohealth F2 was on it. I don't know how I missed it. I don't think I can add it to the poll now.
I see from the first question that 7 people have listed others so I suspect that a few of those are currently using the F2.

OK, let's get this thread back into play!

It needs more votes to produce a valid poll.

I know for a fact that more places use E-MAT (for example).

So, if you haven't already done so, please consider each question at the original post and then place your votes.

Geoff, it would have been nice if there was a space for comments when asked "Do you feel your current database system is lacking in any areas?" people could have put their replies etc.

I have found (rather unsurprisingly, when you think about it) that, having forked out £££ Large Amounts, and gone through the pain of "implementation" and all the rest, that folk tend to be a bit defensive about the system they are using (have been landed with, carefully selected, foisted upon them ... whatever).

Wasn't it a Bruce Springsteen song that said something like:- "But you get used to anything. Sooner or later it just becomes your life"?

Wasn't That Nick Clegg?

Unfortunately the poll facility does not allow open ended questions. Therefore people cannot write about their opinions on various systems within the poll itself. However if anyone wants to share their opinions on a system please feel free to post them.

I'm wondering if you've had a go yourself, Damian.

You can design the basics, and prove it to yourself (by adding dummy data) using a spreadsheet, and then (if you have the time, and the inclination) reproduce the structure(s) in a database.

Even deciding upon which fields to include, field lengths and stuff like that, and then writing about it, is (would be) a worthwhile exercise, I reckon.

With databases (modern ones especially) it's easy to keep on adding fields, but to my mind it's far more, shall we say, elegant to do it using the minimum number.

Then you could move on to consideration of which data files to include, and how they should relate to each other (if at all).

You will find that, as you progress, you will be making hundreds of design decisions along the way. It's all very interesting, rewarding (and, of course, often frustrating) for anyone with imagination and a creative mind.

Thinking in terms of a better way, you will usually find it, even if it takes all night (as it sometimes does).

Good luck with this.

Already touched on is the platform for the database - a key consideration. In our trust we use the Philips Optim system which needs lots of mouse clicks and screens. Better for management, not as good for basic work. So much so, we've written our own web-browser front end. What you see is what you need to see. The fewer the mouse clicks the better!

All databases have lots of features. Often the problem is that there's very little choice in switching off features you don't want to use. It often helps if you can disable particular fields.
The one thing that we use a lot of is scanned documents e.g. scanned service records against a job. Photographs against a model etc, etc. For us, it is a key function of a database, often very poorly implemented though. We resolved in-house with our own web-browser front-end.

We went for Philips Optim some years ago. If we went around the purchase cycle again I'd have to consider web-browser based applications and look very carefully at the configurability of the database with an essential requirement to scan documents, attach documents etc.

In your review you may want to draft a tender specification that allows Clin Eng teams to utilise as a basis for pulling together their own detailed spec. suited to the local approach for medical equipment management.

Interesting post, that, Chris.

Back to "less is more"?

You're dead right about "all the features" (not just in Optim, but more or less all of them - the contemporary ones, anyway). Being able to configure the system (or not, as the case may be) is a big plus I reckon. Ideally, each user could have his or her own set-up. But it can mean a lot of extra work for the developer, though.

And ... after forking out all that £££ wonga, the Bosses may not be best pleased to find half of those "essential" features ... er, turned off. Ha, ha.

I'm reminded of MAMISS (and I'll find the earlier post in a minute, hopefully). Damian may be interested in that.*

I know a biomed shop (at a large, well respected hospital) where a High-Band (there you are, a new buzzword) biomed tech does nothing else but drive (fiddle about) with Optim. Nice work if you can get it (and I only wish I could).

Interesting what you're saying about documents. Do you simply point to them with hyperlinks?

One last question if I may:- do you have any idea about the underlying basis of Optim? Can you access the datafiles from "outside"? Which format do they use? ... etc.

* See this thread, for instance.

Good luck Damian,

As others have pointed out, there are good databases that you have excluded such as F2 and E-quip. I would recommend that you interview the suppliers and create a table of all the available systems with options/modules available from each supplier.