Has anyone out in EBMEland got any useful info on a third party battery supplier called Medgraphics?
As our trust is always in search of a "pound to save" they have been looking at buying replacement batteries from Medgraphics.
The particular batteries are used on the Agilent Heartstream XL defibs. Medgraphics are claiming to be able to supply a battery to the same spec as Agilent for £19.95!
Has anyone actually bought any of these?
If so, what has been the outcome?

Thanks guys!

Hi Steve,

With "High Risk" equipment I would always suggest using OEM supplied batteries to be certain that the device is operating to manufacturers spec. You dont want batteries not working to manf spec in equipment like this.
These batteries have a little recess in the end which sits over a microswitch. If you use the non-OEM batteries you will prob find there is NO recess in the end. This microswitch if depressed charges the capacitor up slower to reduce current drain on the battery to avoid tripping the thermal cutout.
To be safe I would use OEM ONLY on high risk equipment, OEM batteries are normally better quality than 3rd party suppliers, you get what you pay for.
I think that there are some debates on this issue on this site if you do a search on this site under "XL batteries" or something like that.

Get it in writting that the batteries meet or exceed the specification of the original oem.
You will find a lot of oem buy their batteries just like us anyway.
Weve actually had batteries delivered from a well known oem, still in the packing from a very well known battery supplier.
The oem still had the cheek to tell us their batteries where SPECIAL.
You may even find the ones from a 3rd party are the exact same make / model without the labels removed.

Hi Steve - We have used Medgraphics almost exclusively for our medical batteries for a couple of years now and yes we do use the batteries you mention along with many other types. So far we have had no issues with the quality of the batteries supplied and we certainly like the price. In my long and cynical life as an EBME tech I have found that any accessory HP, Agilent and/or Philips sell will be about three times the price it should be!

Steve you might want to check the situation out with Philips, here we sometimes use Euroenergy or Medgraphics for other items but for the XL defibs it's a definately no. Some companies are ok with the use of third party battieries where as others treat it similar to a third party modification.

Isn't that Heartstream XL battery a "bog standard" panasonic?? (not touched one of those defibrillators for a while). Im sure there can be no issues with using the same or equivelent type/model bought from a 3rd party.
We have used both Euro Energy and Medgraphic batteries without any problems.

I beleive it is, can't see any problems myself, but when asked why we order from the manufacture for philips defibs I was informed it was due to Philips blaming third party batteries for a problem in the past.

The MHRA has produced guidance on the management of batteries in medical devices. The use of batteries that aren't recommended by the manufacturer is definitely discouraged for what I'd have thought are obvious reasons.

Euro Energy for one seem to be aware of the battery requirements with Philips Heartstart XL defibs and have had to react to previous problems if Chris G's last post here is anything to go by.

It may be obvious to you, Richard! But surely not all batteries are mission critical, as it were? Can't the Master Technicians out there be left alone to make decisions about whether a (high-price) OEM battery is called for, as against a (cheaper) third-party equivalent?

What's pretty obvious to me is that "certain" manufacturers are simply scare-mongering people into buying over-priced batteries from their own catalogues (as Chris suggests). At the end of the day, a battery of such-and-such a rating, capacity etc., is just that.

MHRA guidelines? What use are they, without compulsion?

Sounds more like they didn't if you read it fully, first they claimed they were EXACT equivalent then had to put out an an URGENT recall when they found they weren't. Are they fully equivalent or is there something else they don't know? Probably best to go with the MHRA guidance.

At least Philips don't do it on purpose, there's one GE product that uses a standard smart cell but their unit will only work with their programmed smart cell not the standard ones!

Also some companies if you send a piece of equipment into them with a third party cell, they will change it and charge you for a new one!

No comment needed there, methinks! I might as well leave others to fill in their own!

When you buy a piece of equipment, does title not pass to you these days, then? I would have thought that no-one has the right to change stuff in your machine without first advising you, or better yet, seeking your permission. I would not have paid that bill!

But, happily, anything programmed, whether computer programs or so-called "smart" cells, can always be hacked. Someone has to fight back, after all!

Quite correct Geoff but what about those individuals that need a bit of guidance because things aren't so obvious to them as they are to others? Where do we draw the line on what devices to and what devices not to fit batteries that aren't manufacturer-recommended? "Equivalent" doesn't mean the same as "manufacturers recommended" nor does it mean "identical to manufacturers specification". Nor is it necessarily "best practice".


Actually I diagree. I can quite honestly say, hand on heart, that I've had more potentially serious issues with cheaper 3rd party batteries used in defibrillators and infusion devices, for example, than when I've recommended purchasing of the OEM recommended batteries. Buying 3rd party batteries for safety-critical applications such as defibrillation, portable suction, external pacing, ventilation, anaesthetics monitoring, anaesthetics pumps, etc, carries more risk in my opinion.

Hi Chris,

I did also read it fully and simply stated that they "seem to be aware of the battery requirements".

So taking into account that they did appear to know, yes you can, and should, criticise them for putting out the initial statement without a full physical investigation of the battery and not choosing to simply rely on manufacturer’s data.

Check out this previous thread.

Heartstart XL Batteries.

A.M

Same thread that was being discussed (and linked to earlier) A.M

Sorry Scottish, I did notice the “here” on your posting.

I would only use original equipment manufacturer batteries on any Defibrillator, the risk is to great if it goes wrong.

A.M

Although I can't comment on this particular battery (never having seen or tried it), apart from mumbling that the price seems a bit too good to be true, my "beef" is with the modern trend of using so-called "intelligent batteries" (?) in the first place.

Why, exactly, do we need "dimples", "hidden (undocumented) thermistors", built-in fuses, and all the rest, if not simply to enforce a tie-in to OEM replacement batteries at horrendous prices? I believe they are meant to charge faster than dumb batteries. Is this the case in fact (and, if so, by how much)? Do they last longer? (not so, from what I hear).

It may be a sophisticated gouge, but it's a gouge all the same! At the prices these people charge up-front for their modern, Fisher-Price styled equipment, you'd expect free replacement batteries for life!

Are these smart batteries service-exchangeable, by the way? Otherwise, how are they meant to be disposed of?

Need I mention the distress these things cause to our friends trying to maintain kit in the so-called Developing World? Would I be cynical if I commented that I doubt that the OEM's worry too much about that? And that they're actually more worried about ability (or otherwise) to pay their inflated prices!

Because new batteries have such high power density and the chemistry is fairly complex it's important that protection is built-in during charge, discharge and storage - otherwise pack life is shortened or damage can occur.

The smart functions control charging and protection so I'm led to believe - to prevent scenarios where batteries explode when charged or abused. Also to provide smart capacity indicators of course.

Maybe a gouge but didn't we have scenarios where faulty notebook packs were exploding a while back because some designer/manufacturer got it wrong?

Yes, Richard, but where's the benefit in all this? If it's just to have batteries a bit smaller, for reasons not much more than matters of styling, let's go back to the older versions, I say. That is, a bit bulkier, far less cost, and less likely to explode! Can't see the sense in it, myself.

Don't tell me, "our consumers have demanded it"! That's the usual excuse trotted out when unwelcome and unnecessary new technology is foisted upon the unsuspecting public.

I would agree that its wise to use OEM batteries on critical equipment as I can recall at least two problems relating to 3rd party batteries in defibs resulting in recalls in recent years.

There are companies out there that say they do equivalent batteries. The choice, and associated risk I guess, is up to each department.

Geoff before I came to the NHS I did some work on why these batteries fail. Of the Smart battieries that were checked, it was found that there was nothing wrong with the actual battery itself but with the control circuitry. To basically describe the problem it was like they had instead of being Smart had suddenly become dumb and were actually incorrectly reporting their capacity.

It seems the more smart you make a battery the greater problems you will have with it.

Why am I not surprised by that, Chris? When other products are rushed to market in an under-developed state, consumer watch-dogs go into bat, as it were. Who is responding in the case of medical equipment (apart from us right here, that is)?

You're right about control circuitry. It's been decades since I last studied electronics, but I reckon I could still have a stab at designing a battery control circuit! While I'm still reasonably compos mentis, can someone lay out the actual problem for me, or is it really rocket science after all?

And yes, you guys are right about erring on the side of caution when replacing batteries on critical kit (ie, it's probably best to follow the OEM recommendations). So, let's list which critical bits of kit we're actually talking about (ie, define "critical", in this context), and then perhaps agree that the rules can be relaxed for "non-critical" applications.

Thanks for the input guys. I've read all of your comments. Obviously I am aware of the OEM vs third party debate and am cogniscent of the spec on the OEM product. I was looking for more detailed info on the product being offered.
The scuttlebutt is that one of the Liverpool Hospitals EBME depts. has looked into these batteries and found them to be acceptable. If there is anyone from this alledged site out there who has any info, it would useful.
The reason I posted this thread in the first place was because of my concerns about the product. Won't accept accidents on my watch!

Nice sentiments, Steve. But I doubt that anyone would be willing to publish their research on this forum, for fear of retribution!

Nice word you used there, though, Mate. I don't think we've seen scuttlebutt here before. "Word on the street", "gossip"?

Hi Steve,

As said earlier I would recommend that you only use OEM batteries on high risk equipment like this. If you need to find out whether the 3rd party batteries are any good, buy some and test them in your workshop to see how they perform. Obviously if the batteries turn up without the dimple in the end then they will be incompatible and will not charge the cap in the specified time. Although the batteries are rated the same voltage and amp hour, better quality cells are used bu OEM suppliers in my experience. If you test/inspect the 3rd party batteries and find no difference in performance then you will have to complete a risk assessment to quantify buying these instead of the OEM ones.

OK (here I go talking to myself again):-

Defibrillators
Emergency Suction Units (eg, accompanying transport incubators)
Infusion Pumps
Portable Patient Monitors (eg, accompanying transport incubators)
Syringe Drivers

Whilst we’re all charging on about batteries, here are a nice couple of links. Hope I can find the time to have a read through them! Ciao!

If you're also a bit short on time, take a glance at least at this section (you'll be glad you did)!

It looks like the "smart" battery is here to stay, and we can expect to see more of 'em. So the answer surely has to be the Universal Battery Charger-Tester-Conditioner, that will handle all battery technologies. Including being able to read information contained in "smart" battery chips, and react accordingly. Do these exist yet, I wonder?

Here's a bit more on "smart" batteries. Enjoy!

And lastly, any alternative sources amongst this lot, I wonder?

It looks like the SMBus system is the way to go, then. Anyone know what our medical equipment applications use?

This is the bit I liked:-



At what stage does a youngster start yelling for double-fries with his burger?

SoC :: state-of-charge - supposedly in Ah, rather than £'s!

Well with 278 posts this month there's no change there then!

It's probably the same as every other use, the deciding factor here isn't design it's cost. You'll find that the same battery that goes in the Philips M3/M4 monitor will be the same battery that goes into the equipment that helps someone dig up the road or even perhaps someone's laptop. Even the difference between other medical equipment manufactures like GE could be just programing and a lable. When companies are no longer producing custom built cells and instead use a standard the cost of production falls massively!

Taking that logic one step further, this means batteries from different manufacturers/suppliers, that are functionally compatible but do not necessarily have identical performance, can be offered without the supplier having to have the technical know-how that they would have to if they were manufacturing "equivalent" battery packs, intended for a particular medical device, from scratch.

This is now the problem we face, where previously 3rd parties had to source components and assemble batteries to an identical specification they can now just source "compatible" batteries that they think are the same specification - one step more removed from the product than in the past.

As Isidor Buchmann of Cadex Electronics States in his book "Batteries in a Portable World":


Without a supplier being aware of what "fine tuning" goes into the cheaper "equivalent" battery that appears to have the same characteristics and specifications as the OEM battery that's used and recommended by medical device manufacturers, then being prepared to perform testing and guarantee this, i.e. validate in the device that the battery is intended for, I'd suggest "proceeding with caution" when trying to save money on batteries used in safety-critical applications.

Are you saying that kit ends up being cheaper, then, Chris? I don't think so, Mate. Now that I've looked into things a bit more, it seems that the whole "smart" battery story is very, er, smart. Great technology and all that, but I return to my earlier question of "what is the real benefit" in adopting it?

Myself, I approve of the idea of like-for-like batteries being shared across applications. At least that way prices get driven down, as economies of scale kick in.

I'm interested in the SMBus question, as my guess is that our own dear medical equipment OEM's have their own (proprietary) way of doing things (ie, for commercial reasons). I hope that I'm wrong.

Yes, you're right about all those posts. It seems like I'm using the forum like a blog! Thing is that no-one ever seems to visit my own personal blog, so it's been left rather to wither on the vine. No, this forum is a great place to meet and chew the fat, as it were. I've looked (and continue to look) at quite a few other forums, but this one suits me best (until, and unless, I start up my own, that is)!

It's a fact that smart batteries are more expensive. Charging & discharging algorithm(s), charge/discharge/short-circuit protection, accurate State of Charge (SoC) indicator, accurate State of Health (SoH) indicator. To be smart the SBS forum states that a battery must be capable of SoC indication. You're forgetting single-wire and double-wire battery buses as well, Geoff. They're based on the same principles as SMBus though.

The problems with "smart" batteries are that newer battery technologies, that have overcome the issues with maintaining the battery itself (e.g. Li-Ion, Li-ion Polymer), have been replaced with issues associated with data corruption and calibration of the on-board SoC electronics and incompatibility with the chargers used with them (another reason for not buying non-recommended packs).

To some extent I think the use of SMBus and suchlike has allowed the development of batteries using technologies (Li, NiMH) that, potentially, have significant benefits over the traditional batteries we used in devices in the past, e.g. NiCd & LA- such as being totally maintenance-free.

Without the use of smart technology, i.e. the charging algorithms, protection, etc, then batteries using certain chemistry would most likely present a risk of over-heating or even exploding due to overcharging and short-circuiting because they tend to have a have a high energy-density and chemistry that can become unstable under certain conditions. It has been publicised.

Unfortunately the maintenance-free requirement of the Li-Ion batteries, etc, has been spoiled by the fact that SoC needs calibrating periodically because of SoC "tracking" errors and the fact that the SMBus electronics can become "corrupted". Plus there's the compatibility issue relating to differences in how the SMBus is implemented in the charger and battery as Geoff implies.

The question is if a smart battery had to be designed for the product instead of the product being designed around the battery would it cost more, since one would be a one off design and the other mass production I suspect it would be more expensive.

Of course the extra technology is going to cost extra, but just compare the cost of a Philips M3/4 battery with the cost of going straight to the smart battery manufacturer and see the difference!

And no Universal Charger on the horizon for a while yet, I presume, Richard?

I imagine the equipment OEM's seek out the battery that best fits the needs of their equipment, and perhaps tweak a bit on the control circuitry, Chris.

I presume that going to Philips costs more (?)

I doubt it, the company I use to work for use to buy in exactly the same batteries as the M3. I assume that they can be programmed via the terminals since when you try to use a M3 battery in a GE unit it recognises they weren't purchased from GE! I get a feeling all GE has done is programmed them so that the standard battery can't be used, doubt there's any difference in performance between the batteries purchased from Philips, GE or original manufacturer!

Ps. In the previous use I saw the batteries being used for, the company didn't bother tweaking them, just used them direct from the smart cell manufacturer. Perhaps philips have done the same?

Geoff if your talking about Universal Charger for smart batteries Euro Energy already sell one, one advantage of using off the shelf batteries.

I'd better leave it the guru, Chris.

My thoughts immediately turn to hacking that little beast (not that I would do that myself, you understand). Must get on, Mate, I've got lot's to do this weekend!

Anybody with any feedback on the SBS 3002? How much will it cost me (do I need a 5-terminal AMP connector adaptor)?

By the way, for those out there who may not already know, Euro Energy have some nice .pdf downloads available. Something to read with your cocoa tonight!

The fact is that manufacturers of medical devices will source their packs from a battery manufacturer, to their requirements, design a fully compatible battery charger into their medical device, then sell recommended batteries at a significant markup.

This means that it's unlikely, for commercial and technical reasons, that the identical battery will be available elsewhere, cheaper.

The question when considering cost is whether you're obtaining like for like batteries at a lower cost from 3rd parties. Can 3rd parties be certain that the packs they source, from other battery manufacturers or suppliers, have identical specifications and are fully compatible with the device?

The argument that 3rd parties can supply smart batteries more cheaply can only be supported if the batteries are "like for like" and "fit for purpose". In this respect the 3rd party suppliers are onto a loser if they can't validate their battery and have it recommended by the device manufacturer.

You're right in what you say, Richard. I think we're all agreed, that although the "smart" technology is no doubt very interesting, the way that it's being engineered by our beloved medical equipment OEM's is simply to maximize the gouge! "So what else is new", I hear you say.

The thing is Richard most of these Smart cell's are standardized they have similar numbers to your standard AA, AAA or PP3. When you pick a smart cell instead of having it built to your requirements you pick you from a set of standards that fit your requirement.

You need to check to see if the device manufacturer has picked a standard battery or custom, most times companies are going to pick standard since one of the advantages of smart batteries is standardization and proven (although new) technology, the battery has probably be used in many similar curcumstances and there's probably less chance that sometime down the line it's going to cause you problems.

What you should be doing is go back to the device manufacturer and finding out if they are using a certain product number of smart battery and ask why such a large market up. It's what was done here and a discount soon followed!

Looks like I might need to invest in a Smart Battery Reader, then, Chris.

For anyone interested in digging deeper into this stuff, the MAXIM site looks like the place to start. Try this .pdf, for example. Catch you later!

Not sure you got my point(s) about programming of the standard smart batteries to the OEM requirements or the reasons why compatibility between the smart battery, battery management units and the medical device charger itself is so important.

Despite the battery fitting in the slot and apparently working how do you determine full compatibility with the charger, that the SoC and SoH are working as they should be (as the medical device manufacturer intended)?

It seems to me, from what you've posted, you feel it's valid to ignore that issue, make assumptions, take a chance, and go ahead and purchase something that's standard with the same form-factor and electrical specification (but not necessarily the same battery management) anyhow. Not an attitude to be encouraged given guidelines on battery management from the MHRA.

I do in fact, contrary to popular belief, have plenty of "hands-on" experience and know for a fact that some "standard packs" supplied by 3rd parties for use with M3 monitors can cause problems because they're not fully smart-compatible. By standard do you mean the 3600mAh NimH or 7200mAh Li-Ion used in these type of monitors??


It's a fact newer batteries are life-cycle and age limited and degrade over time irrespective of supplier, whether they're custom or standard and whether they've been abused or not. This must be factored into the lifetime costs.

We should expect replacement of up to 2 packs using newer battery technologies over the lifetime of a medical device that uses them and should therefore factor this into the purchase price, get a one-off discount on the purchase to cover a pack replacement, or arrange replacements when required, FOC, contractually. It can be done, should be done and it's a forward-thinking approach; it has been tried where I work.

Li-Ion, for example, give about 150-250 useful cycles, degrade more quickly at higher operating and storage temperatures and when stored fully charged - they have a 3-5 year shelf-life that's more or less fixed dependent upon the quality (consider you get what you pay for) and the countdown is from the day they're manufactured.

Don't know how you got hold of that notion, Richard! I would have thought that popular belief would have it the complete opposite!

Interesting what you say about battery changes per equipment life. So you reckon three, then? Over a ten-year life span, I presume.

And yes, "forward thinking" indeed. Get the batteries written into the initial purchase order (ie, at today's prices), and just call them off as you need them. Yes, that sounds like the way to go!

Depends on the number of charge/discharge cycles and the projected lifespan of the medical device I suppose Geoff. For Defibrillators that are kept on charge on crash trolleys then I'd expect it depends more on their age rather than the number of cycles. Unless the crash trolley is located in a geriatric ward, A&E or CCU that is.....

For monitoring used on inter-hospital or intra-hospital transfers then I suppose it comes down to the number of discharge/charge cycles and whether battery reconditioning is used (hence the importance of smart battery compatibility with charger/conditioner). Most importantly whether the packs are abused or not.


Something like this was arranged for our new defibrillators that use Li-Ion smart battery packs and we received about £3500 of spare MnO2 packs (non-rechargeable 5 year shelf-life I think), FOC, for our AED "first-responder" defibrillators, recently, on our site alone.

Of course we have arranged that operators get discount on battery reconditioning units and tried to make certain that our crtical care areas have acccess to them for the smart transfer-monitor batteries.

It's my personal belief that if batteries are operator accessible then they should take responsibility for managing and replacing battery packs that they use/abuse. Operators instructions include battery management guidance.

H'mmm. The notion of user servicing (as in servicing by the user). Now, that takes me back a bit, I must say. It was an idea that was officially promoted in British Military Hospitals (remember those, anybody?) thirty years ago. "They" were even meant to fill in simple record sheets to declare that the tasks had been carried out (not that a scribbled signature proved much, of course)!

Can't see that catching on in today's NHS hospitals, Richard (more's the pity). Although, let me stress, personally I'm all for the units taking total responsibility for their equipment, and calling upon the biomeds for service only (ie, rather than assuming that the biomeds are taking care of everything). How many nurses (users)? How many biomeds?

I wouldn't go as far to say servicing by the operator, I'd call it operator replacement as necessary, which is the case with any other accessory or consumable, such as ECG leads, air-filters, etc. When all's said and done the manufacturer has provided instructions and designed battery management, i.e. the use of operator accessible batteries, SoH and SoC, for the operator.

Not sure we're in a position to recondition smart Li-ion packs every 60-90 days or so (as is recommended) to recalibrate SoC indicators in batteries using a battery reconditioner, for example, thus prevent significant tracking errors in battery gauges. I'd expect someone in the clinical area to take responsibility for this in an ideal world (I said it -doh).

Perhaps a new topic called User Tasks (or whatever) is called for here, Richard. I'll have a trawl through the archives later on (hopefully, Huw will beat me to it).

My take on things is that, in many ways biomeds have been, over the years, their own "worst enemy" in their eagerness to provide service excellence (understandably, of course). Meanwhile, many of the user staff have been only too happy to just sit back and let it all be done for them. What we in the trade generally refer to as "hand-holding", I think. In these days of so-called equality, with many users drawing a higher salary than the techs, a re-appraisal of the situation is well over-due, wouldn't you say?

H'mmm so if some one like Omron sold a MN1400 with a Omron shelve on it Richard would still buy his batteries from Omron?

It's a bit like purchasing Yaesu batteries, if you know that a particular companies battery is a Yaesu I can't see any point in purchasing from the manufacturer far better getting it from EuroEnergy. In the same line if you know that a company uses a particular model of Moltech smartcell it's far better to get it direct.

The "cant see any point" statement tells me a lot the Chris - looks like I've "got a live one" as they say. As you're no doubt aware, maybe not, wards can buy and replace their own MN1500s for literally pennies each - NHS logistics buy in such quantity it's not worthwhile getting EBME involved - the batteries are operator accessible. As I posted earlier:


Anyhow I thought we were discussing smart batteries used in safety-critical medical applications? That's actually what I've been discussing all along.

Since you've raised the issue, Chris, is that a commercial or domestic grade MN1400, i.e. PROCELL (ZnMnO2) or DURACELL (ZnMnO)? The specifications are quite different you know - for a start one has an internal impedance that's double the other so it has significantly steeper discharge curves versus load current, i.e. voltage drop, with higher currents. This impacts on peak available current and effective capacity thus operating time (a la bunny).

However, I'm glad you raised the issue, it simply illustrates that you get what you pay for where batteries are concerned - you're paying for the chemistry and quality in manufacture to achieve the performance required. Not sure if you're aware, Chris, probably not, that sealed Gel LA batteries come in two varieties at least - for standby or cyclic use. Plus the specifications can be rated at different discharge rates and currents depending upon the manufacturer/grade.

Irrespective of cost it's the performance in critical applications I'm interested in - no point saving £10 on a £35 OEM battery pack in a critical care ventilator backup system if the cheaper cells don't perform as well and have to be changed twice as often. Then you have the fact that in the past Japanese Yuasa LA batteries supplied in OEM devices used to beat the apparently identical UK sourced/manufactured ones hands down on performance and longevity.

So I disagree that a battery is a battery is a battery, irrespective of whether the numbers on the side of it appear to be the same. The simpler the battery, e.g. LA or NiCd the more you have to look at where they're being manufactured and physically whether the performance and manufacture is up to it, how it's been stored and maintained, etc, etc - irrespective of whether the number on the side says it's "standard". Smart packs just complicate the issue.

All these manufacturers are not playing about when they produce specifications for their "standard" batteries.

Saying this you can probably get away with sourcing from 3rd parties if you know exactly what you're looking for in the specifications, based on experience you can tell performance of the 3rd party is equivalent or better and you are certain that there is no difference, i.e. the cell is a like for like swap-out. But in my experience with LA, NiCd, Alakaline cells and the occasional smart pack, I've had problems with cheaper "equivalents" and prefer not to "experiment".

So I take it you'd never use EuroEnergy or Medgraphics even if as often in the case of Smart Batteries the original battery manufactures lable with part number was printed on it, since you couldn't guarantee country of origin?

As I've stated, based on experience, the country of origin might actually make a difference in some cases. Also the OEM pack smart functions may actually be reprogrammed. Some more expensive packs may consist of matched cells, etc.

The fact that battery manufacturers actually work with OEM medical device manufcturers and get involved with "customising" the SoC, SoH indicators and charging algorithms in "standard" packs is a reason why we should be cautious.

I don't have to guarantee anything - the supplier does, to my satisfaction, if I'm the purchaser and I'm going to take on any liability by fitting a non-recommended battery pack in a medical device.

Personally speaking I'd be prepared to use any 3rd party company that supplies batteries, including the two you name, but only if it supplies batteries that are proven to have the same specification/performance and be fully compatible as the OEM supplied battery.

The application would not be safety-critical medical either, i.e. not ambulatory therapy, portable monitoring, portable suction, ventilation, etc, etc, because the use of 3rd parties batteries has to be considered carefully in these sort of applications and there is some additional risk when considering a non-recommended battery/supplier.

Cost comes into it but it's not the main consideration if there are no guarantees and the battery supplier is not liable for any outcome involving the medical device the battery is fitted to. The individual deciding to fit non-OEM recommended batteries might become liable if there were issues.

This means that I'd be looking for evidence that the battery is produced by the same manufacturer to the same specifications but I'd need some proof of this from the supplier. Looking at other threads this has not always worked out successfully despite efforts to gain these assurances. As you said yourself, earlier:


For safety-critical applications my preference would be to buy direct from the OEM device manufacturer, from another supplier only if it was recommended by the OEM device manufacturer, or, as a last resort, from a 3rd party if they could guarantee that the battery was identical. This shouldn't be a problem for the supplier if they are, in fact, identical.

The inability to source the battery from elsewhere, not necessarily cost, would be a "last resort" for example.

That's the whole point of smart batteries, the manufactures no longer have to work with OEM medical device manufactures. They can mass produce a standard off the shelf battery with a spec sheet something like this and freely provide the technology to program it. Thus as long as the same manufactures spec is ordered it should be compatable with the battery management unit. Actually a smart battery has so much leeway in the way that it's charged that the performance of a smart battery to a particular spec will change per the battery management unit charging it!


Richard I think here what you are actually purchasing is a warranty on the battery provided by the medical equipment manufacturer. You said that you would need to look for evidence that the battery is produced by the same manufacturer to the same specifications but then you said that batteries produced in different countries to the same spec are different. Therefore I get the feeling you want 100% guarantee that a battery made by a certain manufacturer, to a certain spec, on a certain day with a R in the month will be OK.

The difference between a Smart Battery and the battery used on the XL is that EuroEnergy had to get the details from Philips where as the spec for a Smart Battery is freely available. If choosing to purchase either battery from them I as long as they correctly identified which battery had been selected by the device manufacturer, purchased direct from this manufacturer and cloned the battery using freely available tools on the internet (yes I'm sure Geoff will be looking for them) it shouldn't have the same problems as the XL battery did.

Although! I would still go back to the device manufacturer and check that these were OK and if informed they weren't I'd still ask why an off the shelf product they purchase for a few pounds was sold for a hundred and a bit!

No, a limited warranty, e.g. replacement if it fails within a defined period, etc, I'm actually entitled to with any purchase of a battery - 3 months duration, whatever. Because batteries are a relatively "unknown quantity" if they're not OEM supplied then I expect very little from cheaper 3rd party product. As I said I'd rather not find out the hard way.

What I'm after is for the supplier to commit themselves on paper to supplying a fully compatible battery so that I have evidence that I did everything in my power to select an equivalent if some battery-related incident should occur with the medical device.

Remember the manufacturer typically recommends their own spares and accessories and we accept liabilty to some extent if we do not purchase recommended spares and accessories. The 3rd party battery supplier takes no responsibility if you read the small print - the purchaser decides suitability at the end of the day.


Perhaps it's all in the "difference", eh? Maybe the cloning is where the cost comes into it? Have you ever wondered why the battery suppliers don't do the cloning? Perhaps you have plenty of free time to reprogram smart batteries in your department? You're seriously considering adapting a non-recommended battery off the shelf for use on your defibrillators (I doubt it). I can just see Chris Grieves face now!

In this case, if you're being serious, I guess you'll risk invalidating the battery supplier's limited warranty and then you'll pobably be at risk, yourself, for fitting a medical device with a battery that you've tampered with; if there's a battery related incident and it comes to light. What you're suggesting is tampering or re-manufacturing; not selecting an equivalent product. You're authorised to do this then? You run a BSI Quality System at UHBT?

Bit short of time at the moment, Chris. But feel free to have a go yourself, Mate.

We don't we checked what battery goes into the units and confirmed that they were used exactly how the device manufacture receives them from the battery manufacture. Presented with this evidence the device supply informed us, well perhaps we can do a deal if purchased direct from us!

Personannly I doubt that a smart battery would ever be used in a defibrillator anyway, from what I've experienced they have problems just coping with interference from switch mode power supplies let alone a defib firing!

No we check what battery is being used and use the same manufactures recommended battery, often purchasing from either someone like euroenergy or Medgraphics or someone else if it's an industrial standard and it can be confirmed.

Taking your point that standard batteries like Yaesu can still be different if the same product spec, where do you keep all these batteries? I take it you can't keep a standard battery draw and that a Welch Aylln Yaesu of the same spec can't be used in a GE machine, that's going to be a lot of batteries! Or do you either keep a lot of spare equipment, or leave them broken while waiting from a replacement battery from each supplier?

To be quite truthful we don't have masses of battery failures of "standard" packs. Perhaps this is because we stick to OEM packs generally speaking? Only GE Healthcare Dinamap LA batteries cause us any real concerns at the moment, with relatively high rates of failure (possibly abuse).

We have 4 spare defibrillators with Li-Ion rechargeable smart batteries and MnO2 non-rechargeable batteries, that we maintain, to cover the 100+ defibrillators on our site. As I said we've arranged something with the supplier for both rechargeables and non-rechargeables.

For our Philips transfer-monitoring systems in the critical care areas we have arranged for critical care areas to keep spare Li-ion smart batteries cycling in the reconditioning units that we recommended they buy and these are located around the hospital.

We have used call-off ordering systems where the turnaround from companies like Philips is next day or even the same day. We also store technologies like NiCd where they are tolerant to being stored over relatively long periods.

More recently we have had to rely upon the speed of the purchasing system, rather than call-off orders, so that we can turn around repairs quickly. We are tending to buy relatively few batteries from 3rd parties.

At the last place I worked it took 3 weeks sometimes to process an order and the manager was severely limited on spending authorisation - where I work now it takes a couple of days.

Our AED/Manual defibrillators do use Li-Ion packs and these are OEM packs with SoC and SOH that don't need maintenance per-se but do need the SoC calibrating periodically.

We keep NiCd for infusion devices (Alaris PK, GH, SE Gold) since they can be stored over relatively long periods at any state of charge. My objective is to battery cycle the SE pumps 3 times at every 12 months service, as recommended and the Alaris syringe drivers once, to indentify problems.

For transport incubators we get the manufacturer in to replace batteries on the major service - it makes sense given that the batteries represent a small proportion of the cost of the work carried out.

If I had my way we'd automatically replace batteries at predefined intervals on ALL mission/safety-critical equipment (that includes stuff like portable suction and anaesthesia pumps). Saying that I'm not the manager so I don't have to justify the spend.

To be fair I must add that our infusion systems, defibrillators and monitoring systems are relatively new (all purchased within the last 3-4 years) so we shall see how it goes.

I see you don't do predefined changes, here we do probably explains why don't see the same problems with batteries you do.
Actually thinking about it isn't not having a battery change policy on mission/safety-critical equipment just as bad as not buying batteries direct from the manufacturer?

You do keep emergency batteries just incase one packs up?

Here we keep stores, we even have some spare Philips parts and a whole set of OEM and branded batteries since in some cases next day is just too late.

Just to make things clear the batteries we would order from someone like EuroEnergy would be what they call generic batteries as compared to what they describe as OEM packs which in the cases you describe would certainly in most cases need obtaining from the device manufacturer.

Although if you order what you think is going to be an OEM and receive a 3rd party branded cell then as long as this branded cell hasn't been modified by the manufactures (if it has they should really put their own lables on!) I can't see any problem cutting out the middle man.

Ps. I notice that Euroenergy already sell smart batteries for various equipment so they must have goten over compatability problems. (otherwise the equipment would not recognise the battery)

Isidor Buchmann from "Batteries in a Portable World".

Yes, but Richard if four companies sell you the same model of battery from the same battery manufacturer as long as they haven't been modified after dispatch from the supplier surely they should be the same?

If not I think there's a serious problem since staff have responsibility for the conditioning these, they are probably going to get mixed up and since they will have identical part numbers there will be no way of telling them apart!

Bearing in mind all the above. What about if the 3rd party supplier actually advertises their batteries as for example
For xxxx manufacturers yyyy ventilator?
My legal advice (a QC) is that in a court of law the 3rd party would be liable if you could proove you bought the batteries as per the 3rd partys statement.
Therfore if you have relevant 3rd party literature that is directly linked to the batteries fitted you are covered. As its upto the 3rd party to ensure the batteries are fit for purpose. Especially if the 3rd party is a proven NHS supplier.

I guess that's up to you as the purchaser to find out from the supplier. OEM manufacturers are expected to provide full specs on batteries used in their devices to 3rd parties so that they can manufacture equivalent and fully compatible batteries to replace them with.

The use of generic smart batteries in safety-critical applications, e.g. for defibrillators shouldn't really be an issue if the OEM recommended batteries are also generic. P9 DB2005(3) "Guidance on the Safe and Effective use of Battries and Chargers for Medical Devices" states:


A battery manufacturer/supplier should be able to obtain the relevant information and provide batteries and importantly the evidence to support that they are equivalent and fully compatible to the OEM device manufacturers specification and it's up to the purchaser to ensure that they are.

We're always going to face the problem that if the cheaper equivalent batteries are not as good, in terms of performance and/or manufacture, etc, in comparison to the more expensive OEM device manufacturer sourced ones - then being equivalent, compatible, and making savings, is irrelevant.


Because of this I'd suggest that battery management includes labelling packs with supplier ID, purchase details, warranty expiry and references to the actual product ID recognised by the supplier rather than the generic number applied to packs. For traceability purposes if there are issues.

Hi KM,

Chris seems to be referring to the use of generic smart packs with equivalent battery part numbers that I guess are not listed in catalogues for use with particular medical devices - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I reckon purchasers leave themselves vulnerable if they are reliant upon the generic part number on the side of batteries from different sources that're not specifically intended for medical applications; based on variations in performance and characteristics of batteries generally speaking.


Not sure what you mean here - would the battery supplier be willing to fully indemnify the purchaser against all eventualities? I doubt it. Perhaps the terms and conditions of sale need to be obtained beforehand?

I suggest that in the end it's up to whoever fits the batteries, whether they follow the manufacturer's recommendations to use their batteries, or not, and that ensuring a 3rd parties batteries are equivalent is an attempt to mitigate the fact that manufacturers recommendations are not necessarily being followed, with regard to battery replacement?

Richard what I'm talking about is battery manufactures like Moltech and the likes who produce a generic smartcell like the NJ1020HP and similar ranges which they produce in both their own brand and without a label for other device manufactures to put their own labels on.

Now if you could confirm that someone like EuroEnergy or Medgraphic were purchasing Moltech batteries and just programming the E2proms and they confirm they are equivilent, there would be slightly less risk than say purchasing a custom battery like the FR2 battery from a them.

Further more when purchasing batteries if you could confirm that Philips or another supplier used bog standard NJ1020HP it does raise the possibility of going direct to Moltech

There's guidance from the MHRA on this; maybe you've read it. Personally I wouldn't rely on a sales brochure or technical person giving me verbal assurances if I were going to install generic or custom packs into all our defibrillators for example. Not that I have the authority to do so anyhow.

I'd need some evidence that the batteries are not just compatible that they are "equivalent" and "fit for purpose", i.e. they have performance and characteristics that meet or exceed the medical device manufacturers origninal battery specification; as well as being "compatible".

You have to be careful what suppliers mean by "compatible" and obtain the information that proves that the battery is "like for like" in terms of specification. For example a compatible battery may work but its specified lifetime may be shorter than the original battery specification.

In my opinion you can't assume that all suppliers will be sourcing a particular type of generic battery from the same manufacturer. Even if the generic number on the side of the pack appears to be the same. Specifications may vary between similar batteries from different manufacturers.

I would be more inclined to ask Euroenergy why they don't manufacture their own medical-grade equivalent for the NJ1020HP since they appear to be highly reputable, registered with the MHRA as a medical battery manufacturer and guarantee batteries for 2 years. I'd still ask questions though!

Meanwhile... Here's an interesting NHS puchasing link for you all to ponder...

http://www.nhspurchasing.com/brochome.asp?OrgCode=167279&header=product



And another one...

http://www.nhspurchasing.com/supplierinfo.asp?OrgCode=167279&supptype=ebroc

Nice links, John. Official policy, we presume. So that's it, then! QED

Kinda looks like it Geoff... Just wish I'd remembered about them earlier!

What, and spoil Chris' and Richard's fun?

I'm impressed but not that impressed. See any safety-critical device batteries there Geoff - defibrillators and suchlike? Good link but I'd still make sure I was getting like for like - makes sense given that NHS purchasing won't be fitting or using the batteries.

Is NHS purchasing advertising or recommending? When I get into work later in the week I shall contact them and MHRA and ask which it is. If NHS purchasing is recommending then perhaps this means we don't need to purchase from the manufacturer at all and that some policy has actually been agreed across the NHS.

As an aside on the website at the bottom of the page it states:

What are they independent of I wonder? I guess they're just putting together business links without a clue what's going on...policy? I doubt it's anything that organised.

10 products or thereabouts listed - 2 smart pack types NimH? the other 5 smart Li-Ion packs? Not sure about the other 2 types, probably NimH for the MPS? All appear to be American manufactured "legacy" products of a few years old.

I wonder if the battery manufacturer can give the information that's required, as recommended? Not that I don't trust NHS supplies or PASA it's my nature to be cautious. We could ask Inspired Energy the battery manufacturer in the US perhaps.

Especially as there's plenty of stuff in NHS logistics catalogue that when I've enquired of the manufacturer it's not intended for clinical professional use, e.g. pen-type thermometers, battery operated NBP monitors, etc, because of calibration issues and inability to service/decontaminate/sterilize.

PS John & Geoff:

Got this extract from the Inspired Energy battery manufacturer website - STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SALE OF INSPIRED ENERGY,INC. ("Company")


Worrying that the company that makes these batteries dosn't accept any liability if they're used in medical devices in the USA, at least. Can't blame them in these litigious times I suppose.

But hang-on, just had a thought, don't they supply Moltech Power Systems in the UK with this range of batteries? Or does Moltech Power Systems also manufacture in the EU?

I wonder if there are similar conditions of sale in the EU? If not, why not, if they're not for use in medical devices, without special authorisation, in the USA? Does this mean different specification batteries or just different laws?

In the USA they don't appear to be intended for use in medical devices according the the conditions of sale. Wonder what's different in the EU?

Perhaps I should contact the MHRA and ask them to see what Moltech Power Systems standard conditions of sale are when selling-on or manufacturing the Inspired Energy range of batteries for medical applications, eh?

I did think about writing a follow up taking the piss out of what you wrote Richard but I thought what the heck you did a good job yourself!


Go for it, knock yourself out I'd love to be a fly on the wall, but I think the conversation would go "Their the duck manufacture, their the same duck batteries for duck sake" Of course changing the word duck (we like ducks here) for some thing that sounds highly similar.

Perhaps you should do the same for Yaesu's, Panasonic's and Cyclons and RS since you can also buy these direct from the manufacturer.

Now, now, Chris don't go showing your mean, twisted character, to the world - you're getting all excited. Typing and words are easy - it's only a forum, not the real world. That's the thanks you get for sharing information and stuff, eh?

Do you think I'm really going to contact MHRA and Moltech and all that other stuff when I, personally speaking, don't even recommend use of 3rd party batteries? You're more than a fool than I thought (after about your 3rd posting).

By the way I'm off work today, was a bit bored and wasting a bit of time - see how much I can wind up the natives. The turkeys (or should I say ducks?) always seem to pop up from behind the tree. Gobble, Gobble!

On a more serious note personally I'd look at the condition of sale document if only because it contains warranty and other conditions related to returns and limitations of use.

That's just sensible in any business transaction - just in case you do have a faulty batch and you need to argue your case for a replacement.

ok guys - all friends here.

So your really thought it was a good idea to suguest ringing the MHRA and complain about Philips manufacturer of their batteries selling them for medical applications!

Have you read the extract of the US conditions of sale document, for the Inspired Energy packs, that I posted? That company manufactures the packs that you're talking about as far as I'm aware. It states that they cannot be used without authorisation in medical devices. If they are it states you as the purchaser are "in the sh*t" if anything goes wrong. Read the small print.

The conditions of sale may be the same for the company in the EU, maybe not, is all I'm saying. My point is that if they're not allowed to be sold for medical devices in the USA without authorisation then someone somewhere must have some authorisation to sell the same batteries (as you keep reiterating) for medical applications in the EU - since Moltech Power are selling this range of packs in the UK.

I don't care whether Moltech Power say they have done or currently do manufacture for Philips or not - that's between Philips and Moltech/Inspired Energy and heresay. I'm talking about the ass-covering paperwork so that you can justify their use "according to the book". Fewer risks, fewer comebacks, to purchaser, i.e. You.

Logically consider this - manuacturer tells purchasers in one country they can't put batteries in medical devices. In another country they're selling what they insist are the same packs, telling everybody they are intended for medical use. Is this actually the case? Why don't you find out?

Do us all a favour.

1) Are the packs you're purchasing manufactured in the UK or USA?
2) Can you obtain a copy of the UK conditions of sale?
3) Can you obtain a written statement that the batteries are the same in the UK or USA and are the same as the OEM manufacturers?
4) Do Philips recommend the use of these batteries?

It isn't unreasonable for a potential or existing customer to ask the question why, without special authorisation from the battery manufacturer, can we fit the same batteries to medical devices in the UK but not in the USA?

That I can't tell you since as mentioned above our Moltech batteries in the end came from Philips. If you notice above I mentioned it's only GE that come with their own labels.
I sincerely hope so since otherwise Philips has sold us a battery for use in their monitors that they themselves don't recommend!

Moltech the manufactures are selling these for use in these units, how much more authorisation do you need!

Whoa guys!
There's obviously a lot of strongly held views here on both sides.
Talk about un-canning a tin of worms.....

I've presently got a sample of the Medgraphics battery sitting here on my bench which I intend to subject to a rigourous "caning". The Philips/Agilent spec is fairly clear about what the battery must be capable of, so let's find out if it meets the spec. I'll report my findings here.

Yeah, I bet you didn't expect the thread to run onto eight pages when you first posted, eh, Steve?

Now we're looking forward to your report!

Meanwhile, here is a link to Medgraphics.