EBME Forums Forums Maintenance Technical Assistance MS26 lock boxes

My guess is that the designer's understanding of what is needed and the actual requirement are two different stories. That is, the designer is badly briefed.

However ... one might ask:- what is the requirement (in specific terms)?

That the "bl**dy" things do not break or that if they do they are a "hell of a lot" cheaper.

Lee

Yes ... but what are they actually meant to do (prevent, whatever)?

Sorry a bit to "specific".

According to our policy "The syringe driver must be protected from tampering by locking it in the designed Lockbox (large plastic cover) during use".

Lee

OK. So now the reason is beginning to emerge!

Namely:- to prevent (or aim at preventing ... in other words discouraging) tampering - by the patient, or "friends" of the patient presumably, or whomever - with the settings prescribed by the nurse or carer.

Right-oh. But why would the patient et al want to interfere with the settings? Would it be because s/he feels that insufficient benefit (relief) is being administered? Is it at all possible that they could they be right in thinking (or, perhaps more accurately, feeling) that, I wonder?

What's the score here? How long must the patient wait (suffer) ordinarily if the dose needs to be increased ... without resorting to "self-help", that is?

Meanwhile, can I assume that the "boost" button is still available for use? Or does the box cover that as well?

How about preventing the helpful friend/relative easing the patients passage to the after life?

Or the patient helping themselves for that matter? Not that i think the patient should not be able to make a choice about whether to end it all or not, but with the current legal system it will be the medic that set the unit up that will be accused of murder.

Lee

Ah yes, now we're getting to the nub of the thing!

OK, let me cut to the chase here ... I wonder whether the lock boxes are, shall we say, deliberately designed to be (what we could call) "user friendly". That is, relatively easy to be defeated by (again, what we might call) the "determined patient"?

Could this be construed as a "passing the buck" situation, do you reckon? (no need to answer)

Otherwise ... we are looking at something like a steel box solution, are we not?

what problems do you have with the t34? we have raised 2 complaints with McKinley over their 'quality' in 6 months ... we are the only place with this problem believe it or not...

We have only just purchased two, specifically for a patient that needs them for a particular treatment, but we plan to purchase 100 to replace our MS16A's. So it's early days yet........

As for you being the only place to "with this problem". You should remember that phrases like that and "We've never come across that before" are taught at most companies induction training.

Im not sure I'd go spending any money on MS series devices right now. I have about 20 gathering dust on my shelf next to me. Here in New Zealand the local Medicine and Device safety people have stated that all MS devices must be out of service by July 2010. Unfortunately the preferred replacement here is the Cardinal (or what ever they call themselves this week) Zimed AD. Having put about 50 into the hospital, I am not convinced that they are much better than an MS device. The T34 was without a doubt the preferred device, but the accountants chose the AD. I suspect we were made an offer we could not say no to, for 'marketing reasons'.