EBME Forums Forums Maintenance Technical Assistance Summer / Winter Time

Suggesting it is one thing, Richard. Actually doing it is quite another. Let’s not wait for manufacturers and medics to thresh out a standard (life’s too short), but get on and build a prototype or two ourselves.

There are a lot of interesting (?) facets to this. Like, for example, how to pull out information from the software services already provided within the many different types of equipment (all, I should imagine, using dedicated one-off embedded programs)? Sounds like a hardware hack to me, Mate. But don’t forget that the Box has to work with all types of equipment. Perhaps it’s not actually do-able at all.

So, let’s put this open to the floor, and hear feedback from the rest of the forum. I reckon it’s an idea worthy of development, but as I say, let’s have an agreed spec first. Yes, we should tick the RFID box straight away. Anybody got some passive RFID boxes we can play with?

Regarding percentages, anyone expecting a taste is bound to be disappointed unless he (she) is prepared to plonk some money on the table at the beginning. That’s the way these things work, I’m afraid!

What I would really like to see is a) An agreed spec about what the Box must do (we could have more than one spec if you like, a Basic Box and a Super Box, or whatever) and then b) Hold a competition to design and build Boxes that meet the spec and c) Have them judged at a suitable venue, by a genius person or noble gang (please step forward, Mr. John Sandham and Mr. Darren Magee – just for argument’s sake, you understand)!

Yes, that's why I'm suggesting it on a forum - perhaps someone at College, University or a R&D department, who's interested in pursuing it wants to have a go as a technical project, eh?


Yes - but predominantly software I think and one that could be common to all devices if there's a standard "port" or even wireless aerial access connection fitted externally.

I suppose what I'm basically saying is either use wireless networking or build active RFID transponder capability into the medical device to transfer data two-ways, whilst emulating a standard RFID tag with data transfer capabilities. The choice comes down to comparative costs and ease of implementation I guess.

That's why a standard needs to be developed for designers and manufacturers of RFID/wireless adaptors/medical devices to implement the "interfaces" that purchasers of their equipment may "demand" in future.

I'm discussing potential future developments in design and manufacture that could give "value-added" functionality not retrofit modifications or gizmos.

Look at that … already two standards are emerging! But I want my Box to be fitted inside the Roberts Pumps too, Richard. Janus-like, we have to be able to retro-fit to all the old devices out there as well as lay plans for future standards. There’s no “standard port” to be tapped (er, hacked) into, is there (except, perhaps, the mains connection)? So, the Box has to be the port itself. How to interface it to all the various bits of kit – that’s where we need the genius guys to look! We might need to “think outside the box” (aha, a pun methinks!) a bit here, I reckon. For example, we could go for a simpler approach whereby (for instance), all Boxes in a user department acknowledge your signal, and download their data, as you enter the area, and press the “sync” button on your PDA (or whatever). Who knows?

I doubt we would have RS232 fitted to medical devices if there weren't a standard involved somewhere Geoff. Even now RS232 is still competing against other standards for communications - not because of performance - it's still in demand.

I suggested more than one standard may be required since I don't know which type could be implemented more successfully and what's more popular based on the technology that's currently available off the shelf.


Yes, of course, if the manufacturers decide to design and build wireless or RFID read/write capability into medical devices. As long as the idea is useful and it works in practise the way it's implemented technically doesn't really matter.

However, there'd be no point every manufacturer "fitting their black box" and none of the implementations meeting a common standard for communications, for example, would there? Think about RS232 and why it's been so successful.

I hope you are all beavering away on this one. Did I mention the prize?

Ok then, no additional network protocols or standards (except those actually required for parsing data and interfacing between medical devices and a network, via a transceiver device of some sort), why can't a bluetooth transceiver be used to network medical devices?

Chipsets and network solutions are readily available, the 2.4GHz spectrum is unregulated, I think, plus there should be up to 100m range with the higher power systems (100 milliWatt ERP). It'd allow Geoff to walk into a room with his little PDA with a flashing blue light on and save the day.

Can anyone think of reasons why bluetooth, integrated into medical devices or possibly interfaced and attached to the outside of the device enclosure, would be unsuitable?

Oh dear, does that mean I will have to wear one of those funny things stuck in my ear?

Fridges now talk to toasters, apparently, so I expect it’s not beyond the realms of possibility for our little boxes to talk to our PDA’s. Yes, I expect that Bluetooth may have to be involved. It is, after all, a device-to-device technology, and seems to be creeping into medical usage anyway, although the emphasis so far seems to be doing away with all those cables. It seems, however, that not everyone likes Bluetooth (notice that the page linked to here has many interesting links of its own)! So that's a good start, then, Richard. Bluetooth will be part of our spec. Just as long as everyone is aware of Bluejacking, that is.

You'd also have to get within range of the equipment or a network access point as well Geoff - not too much of a problem for a "hands-on" technician but it might be inconvenient for a desk-jockey, eh?

Blue tooth is probably the necessary compromise between RFID and Wireless in terms of data transfer capabilities, simplicity of implementation and power drain.

We wouldn't want to transfer lots of data but we would require sufficient network access to be able to locate devices. Apparently the range of bluetooth can be extended to 100m with amplification.

Security is not a major issue since sensitive data is not going to be transmitted; however a fairly robust communication scheme would be necessary to prevent tampering. OEM modules smaller than a credit card are available and can be embedded into low-power portable systems.

Obviously we don't necessarily want medical devices from different manufacturers to talk to each other (although this idea could form the basis of sensor-fusion and smart-alarm and decision making systems of the future) so this aspect of bluetooth would have to be considered I think.

The 2.4GHz band is set to become more crowded but frequency-hopping spread spectrum communication schemes lend themselves to some inherent noise immunity and this combined with low power output levels would probably not present EMC issues to medical devices.

As you've said, Geoff, the fact that a technician could collect data from a device, adjust date & time, locate a particular device connected to the network and store data to a device, e.g. date of next service, remotely, could be useful I think.

All we need is the medical bluetooth interface functionality to be embedded into medical devices by the manufacturers.

Surely that's one of the best features of the system, Richard? To ensure they get off their fat butts. Ha, ha!

Yeah, I like the idea of sensor-fusion, Richard. That could be phase two (and our second million)! But I think it’s us who will have to do the interface embedding, here, Mate. That’s the essence of the Box!