EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management Fluke OneQA

Hi Everyone,
We are trialling Flukes OneQA and would like to get any opinions from other users.
We have been using Asur since its introduction with a full complement of Fluke
test gear and integration with ECRI AIMS with no problems.
Any feedback would be most apprciated.

Welcome to the forum, Monty.

Well, I've taken a look at the YouTube video (testing what looks like a Medtronic LifePak 20 with a Fluke ESA 615 electrical safety tester and Impulse 7000 defib analyzer)* ...

... the software (user interface) appears a lot "tidier" than Ansur. But does this herald the end of Ansur? If so, that would be a sad state of affairs (it's a pity Fluke didn't leave Metron alone, IMHO).

Does OneQA let you (the user) edit the sequences? Or are you stuck with someone else's ideas about how tests should be conducted? In the YouTube demo, NFPA 99 is mentioned, for example.

Myself, I would like to edit terminology to my own (biased) preferences; I would change "Asset", and "DUT", for example.

So, in a word:- is OneQA configurable?

Also, what about all the effort you have invested in Ansur? Can that stuff be ported across into the new system?

If it were me, I think I would need a lot of convincing before moving away from Ansur. Especially if, as you say, you have it integrated nicely with AIMS.

Cloud-based? If this good? OK as long as there is an internet connection, I guess.

And notice that I haven't even mentioned cost (and time needed to implement).

There's a load of information here:- OneQA.

PS: I would be interested to learn if this new software still uses the old Metron .mts, .mtt and .mtr file types. I'm guessing not.

* I noticed fifteen full-energy discharges of the defib ... I was once told that my own practise of ten consecutive discharges was "excessive"!

Hi Geoff,
All of your points were exactly like ours, especially the cost:).
The drop-down test sequences do make it tidier but if left open you have to scroll constantly
to see your results. I like the ANSUR single page to a test and then onto the next page.

You can create your own test procedures and select the relevant standards, we use AS3551.
I think the terminology is locked and you are correct that we have invested a large amount
of time in creating our ANSUR environment. It would take a considerable amount of
resources to port over to OneQA. At the moment Fluke say they will port checklists free of
charge but haven't mentioned more complex procedures using Fluke test equipment.

The cloud based idea may be good for institutions that have reliable wireless but we have
asked if there would be a stand alone version.

The cost is a factor especially for large Biomed departments.

OneQa doesn't have service events which we use in numerous procedures and would make
the porting of procedures even more complex. The Fluke ProSim8 has still to be added to
the list of usable devices which for us, is one of the main test equipment items we use.

At the moment we are using the cloud with the trial version so results are saved to there
but I will check and see what the file extensions are.

Thanks for your thoughts, all of them relevant.

Monty from Sunny Perth

Hi Geoff,
I've just looked at a OneQA test result and the extension is .mtr.
Looks like One QA still uses the Metron extensions

From the downloads page of the Fluke website I note that Ansur ProSim 8 Plug-In v1.1.5 is available for "Ansur Executive v3.1.3 or above".

Are you saying that Ansur plug-ins don't work with OneQA?

Hi Geoff,
That is correct although there are no plugins as such with OneQA.
According to Fluke the ProSim8 will be added as a supported device in a few months time.
In a teleconference call to the developers we did highlight that the ProSim is the most important test device as even defibs nowadays aren't just defibs not to mention using the ProSim for patient monitors.
Your initial comments about staying with ANSUR are ringing true:)

The "gotcha" with sticking with Ansur obviously is:- what happens if (when) Fluke decide to discontinue support for Ansur, and (as well as) not making any new Plug-ins available if needed for new test kit in the future?

On the other hand ... perhaps there could be an opportunity there for Third-Party Developers (not much money in it, though ... especially considering the time and effort involved).

However ... I should imagine that whatever means are used to insert a "supported device" into OneQA, surely the background code is going to be "very similar" (if not identical) to that of the "old" Ansur Plug-ins.

By the way (as already mentioned), I can see the need for a complete re-write of Ansur. If you look, for instance, at files contained in some of the Plug-ins you can see straight away how they have become not only greater in number, but also increasingly complex since the early days (of Metron QA-90, QA-ES, QA-ST et al).