We've been through all this before:-
"There's no such thing as the perfect design" etc.To which I would counter:-
"If you're not seeking perfection, why keep experimenting?"So, if that job you did on the Danby was indeed a mod, then we can only assume that this was where Baxter got the idea (
ie, when then took over Danby) and then continued to follow what became an established pattern of (shall we say) "evolving" their pumps as they went along. And, of course (and this surely must be the main point), at
great inconvenience to hospitals (
aka customers) that bought them.
When it comes to medical devices like infusion pumps, I would have thought it best to get the thing properly designed in the first place (even if that takes, like computer software, a couple of years to accomplish), undertake some trials at co-operating hospitals, and
then (if it's any good) release it for general sale to unsuspecting hospitals!
Mk II upgrades, and improvements made in the light of actual use are to be expected ... but that's not really what we're talking about in the case of the Colleague, is it?
What's the point of introducing any new item of medical equipment that isn't a clear improvement on what went before, in terms of either clinical performance or useful technical enhancements (or better still, both)? And what's more ... what's the point of
buying it?
PS: Danby was a small company. And notice I said "perfect" (that is, quotation marks were used). Notice also that I said
in its day (and that would be something like 17 years ago now). There have been, over the years, a number of "perfect" infusion pumps. But sadly (and in my opinion), the Colleague can hardly be counted amongst them.
