EBME Forums Forums Maintenance Technical Assistance Baxter COLLEAGUE

I need some up-to-date feedback on the Baxter Colleague, I KNOW its been mentioned a few times on the site, but I’ve been asked to collate comments on their use, both from the user and from engineers. Need some fast answers... cheers....

I look after a small number of these. Before the recent upgrade they were quite troublesome. After the upgrade, admitedly they were only done in October last year, they seem to be performing well. Reports from users show an increase in their confidence when using them.

Being that free speech is the word of the day, I wouldent touch them with a barge pole and would be looking to remove them from service, especially if they were in use in high dependency areas.

After reading the recall notice and upgrade program etc I commend them for the modifications done to the devices, however it is not acceptable that devices this age had a plethora of problems before the company were spurred into action.

Interesting with regards to the fault types:-
http://www.biomedpart.com/IVpumpAnalysis.html

I would be interested to hear from others who may have tested these OR the 6201 devices on an IDA/equivelent. Please look at the delivery rate over time waveform and comment on drugs / clinical application in comparison to the latest range of volumetrics on the market.

Others may have had limited problems with giant stocks, unfortunately our limited stocks of these have not exactly been without problems or COST (pump heads).

Problems with this pump have been well-documented. Just do a search on this very site.

But thanks Joe, for the link to www.biomedpart.com . What a great website!

Here’s a couple of other sites that I particularly like:- old-computers.com and Signature Medical . Enjoy!

We have loads of Colleagues here, and i would agree, prior to the upgrade they were troublesome but since our upgrade visit last August, they have been quite reliable. All are under a new 1 year warranty (until August) and of the few we have sent back, the turnround time is quicker than before. My ongoing criticism though is being limited to replacing the whole PHM for a multitude of error codes, although the upgrade has certainly reduced the frequency of PHM error codes.
Regarding testing, although i use an IDA4 for 6201's (results always accurate), they are not compatiable for the action of the Colleague (this should be common knowledge), and these pumps should be "manually" tested as per the Service Manual.

Hi all your comments are well appreciated and taken on board. I'm trying my best to veer away from them and I'm getting some opposition.....

I spoke too soon. I have just had my first error and as usual the PHM needs replacing. It is still under warranty from the upgrade but this surely shows that the reliability of these pumps has not improved.

Quite simply

Don't Go There !!

A great, friendly, helpful rep. is no substitute for a piece of kit that is very unreliable.

I appologise for my ignorance / limited experience with the 6201's however someone please enlighten me with regards to incompatibilities in testing methods.

I understand that the manufacturers reccomend a purely volumetric measurement i.e the good ol burette etc, however the delivery waveform is still significantly poor regardless.

When comparing this to other devices I get an uncomfortable feeling that the pump is under performing by modern standards.