Inside the Current Issue

Cover Story
Managing critical care supply tensions
Self Study Series
Purchasing Connection
Resources
Show Calendar
HPN Hall of Fame
HPN ProductLink
Classifieds
Issue Archives
Advertise
About Us
Home
Subscribe

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for our Email Newsletter

For Email Marketing you can trust
Special Event Photos
Contact Us
KSR Publishing, Inc.
Copyright © 2012

People, Places, Processes & Products that Influence the Supply Chain

 

INSIDE THE CURRENT ISSUE

October 2011

The spate, state of supply chain scandemonium

Tag team applications involve art and science

by Rick Dana Barlow

Healthcare supply chain managers can take a note from diagnostic and interventional radiologists, who can choose from a variety of imaging modalities to care for their patients.

From X-ray to computed tomography to magnetic resonance imaging to positron emission tomography to nuclear medicine and a growing list of hybrid/hyphenated modalties, clinicians order the appropriate imaging method to serve a particular function inside the body, such as identifying masses in bone or soft tissue or monitoring blood circulation.

Supply chain managers face similar choices in applying visual mechanisms externally for tracking the movement and location of patients, staff members, products and equipment, along with temperature, pressure, humidity and a host of secondary parameters.

But do those external tracking "modalities," such as bar coding, radiofrequency identification (RFID) and other real-time location system (RTLS) software applications specialize in certain areas, just like selected imaging modalities can be used for selected applications? In a way.

If you break from the herd and focus on the process for which you’ll use the technology applications prior to selecting any tracking technology you’ll be ahead of the game, according to Al Cook, CMRP, FAHRMM, senior director, healthcare resources, Integrated Business Systems & Services, Columbia, SC, and Chief Resource Director, The Regional Medical Center, Orangeburg, SC.

"The real issue, I think, with the technology is that if you select the equipment before you identify the process issues, you try to force the equipment to do things that it may not be designed for," Cook told Healthcare Purchasing News. "This fits the concept that if the only tool that you have is a hammer, then every problem begins to appear as a nail."

Yet one of the challenges in tracking assets and processes is being able to differentiate the technology applications. Specific delineation between bar coding and RFID may be evident at first glance but for many the view blurs when they try to distinguish between RFID and RTLS – if that’s even correct. And it may not be.

Brian McAlpine, director, strategic products, Capsule Tech Inc., Andover, MA, purported one way to clear up the ambiguities.

"RFID refers to a pure technology – [it] could be active RFID or passive RFID technology for example – and RTLS is a tracking/asset solution that could leverage RFID as an underlying technology," he noted. "But some RTLS systems can also rely on non-RFID technologies, such as ultrasound, infrared or combinations of any of these technologies. To put it more simply – RTLS is the solution that locates an asset or person, and RFID is one of the technologies that is used by the RTLS system."

RTLS is a market segment and not a technology, according to Valerie Fritz, vice president, marketing, TeleTracking Technologies Inc., Pittsburgh, and different RTLS vendors use different underlying technologies.

"Within RTLS there are a variety of underlying technologies used to obtain the location data needed to drive these solutions," she clarified. "Infrared and ultrasound are two of the options used by RTLS solution providers to obtain this location data. RTLS solutions are really only as good as the underlying location technology used, combined with the software and process improvement applications and services it is paired with."

Even so, Fritz noted that bar coding, RFID and RTLS "describe very different technologies that are independently and collectively useful for different applications." If anything, bar coding and RFID share the most similarities in function.

"Bar-code systems require a person to scan items and do not necessarily report asset location," Fritz continued. "RFID systems read an asset’s location as it passes through a fixed reader." However, bar coding and RFID serve a different need than RTLS in that they are characteristically used to manage information and eliminate manual data entry, she added.

"Both RFID and bar coding are typically used in the supply chain process for product shipping and receiving purposes, can be used to manage inventory levels for replenishment ordering of medical/surgical supplies, [such as] stents, catheters, bandages, etc., and for medication administration or treatment verification at the bedside. RFID can overcome some of the problems associated with bar codes in that it eliminates human compliance issues, but RFID is unlikely to replace bar codes any time soon as it remains more costly than bar coding.

"RTLS is the right choice for mobile medical equipment management, patient tracking, staff locating and temperature/environmental monitoring," she said. "RTLS provides a network throughout the hospital enterprise and continuously reports when and where a tagged asset or person is located in real-time, and without manual intervention. Because RTLS is active locating technology, meaning the tag includes a battery to continuingly signal its location, the tag form factor is typically too large to apply for disposables, medications, specimens and surgical instrumentation."

Marcus Ruark

Marcus Ruark, vice president, marketing, Intelligent InSites Inc., Fargo, ND, traced RFID’s popularity in healthcare to the emergence and use of passive tags within the Department of Defense and Walmart roughly a decade ago. Since then, RFID’s definition morphed to include active RFID technologies – essentially battery-powered or battery-enhanced passive RFID tags – but is also sometimes used to refer to RTLS solutions that use RF for location purposes, he added. "Within the healthcare industry, I think it is simplest – perhaps as shorthand – to think of RFID as passive RFID, whereas anything related to active-tracking would fall under RTLS," he noted.

RTLS as a term is gaining more relevance in healthcare, particularly given the increased focus on cost savings and the connection that customers are making between enterprise RTLS solutions and hard-dollar cost savings, according to Ruark. RTLS includes any tracking technology capable of providing real-time information — usually location information, but sometimes also environmental information, such as temperature or humidity, or event information like a button press.

"Unlike passive RFID technologies, which require the RFID tag to cross a threshold, enter a chokepoint, or be within range of a handheld reader, RTLS allows tags to be tracked or monitored continuously and ubiquitously throughout the healthcare environment," he said. In short, RTLS technologies include Wi-Fi, infrared, ultrasound, ZigBee, Bluetooth and proprietary RF.

HPN asked sources to comment on where they believe certain asset tracking applications specialize or in which areas supply chain managers should deploy selected asset tracking applications – or "modalities." Visit the following for their specific suggestions:

Bar coding works well for…

RFID works well for…

RTLS works well for…

Infrared- and ultrasound-based RTLS work well for…


Zoned offense

Supply chain managers may have various tracking options from which to choose but unfortunately they can’t take the convenient and easy route and choose one application as a universal solution based on existing technology infrastructure, workflows or other process requirements.

As a result, plug-and-play across the board for people, processes and products is out in favor of departmental or functional customization.

"There is no single identification and tracking technology suitable for ‘everything’ because different assets hold different values, and each technology has its strengths and weaknesses relative to a given application," said Ken Lynch, director of marketing, ThingMagic Inc., a division of Trimble, Cambridge, MA. "Further, some processes benefit from being measured in real time while some do not, and matters like patient safety are too complex to be solved by a single technology or solution.

Ken Lynch

"For example, the line-of-site requirements for using bar codes can create challenges when trying to automate certain processes," Lynch continued. "[Ultrahigh Frequency] RFID has a significantly greater read range than most all other RF technologies, but this advantage may not be suitable for all applications. This is why it is likely a hybrid visibility platform will ultimately win out. A platform or solution that supports multiple identification and location technologies, coupled with cooperation through the medical supply chain, between hardware and software vendors, and within provider organizations, is the best path to significant long-term process improvements and cost savings."

Ruark agreed with the cliché that one size does not fit all.

"Different technologies have different pros and cons, different facilities have different requirements, and different use cases require different functionality," Ruark indicated. "Further, RTLS hardware technologies evolve over time, some at different rates than others." Ruark emphasized that supply chain managers should pursue an enterprise-class software solution that works with every technology without dependency on particular hardware or software and keeps pace with innovation.

Because different technologies solve different purposes Fritz said she doesn’t equate RFID and bar coding as alternates to RTLS. "The software applications, domain expertise and workflow processes associated with each of these technologies solve different needs," she added. For example, RTLS may focus on hospital operational logistics for mobile equipment and patient flow while RFID handles supply chain shipping and receiving and bar coding covers medication administration validation.

Misapplying a technology application can be fiscally disastrous and operationally frustrating but bridging software can help hook up and link the various application types to their respective specialties.

"Using an RTLS solution to track low-level assets is overkill and expensive, but by the same token, using a bar-coded solution does not produce the sufficient tracking when used to manage care-critical medical equipment, so several solutions are often needed," asserted Michael Fein, technical product manager, Zebra Technologies Corp., Lincolnshire, IL. "Fortunately, newer middleware applications can integrate RFID, RTLS and bar-code systems into a single dashboard allowing healthcare facilities to easily manage the people, processes and assets in their facilities."

One technology application may not meet all of the diverse requirements for every use case and environment, according to McAlpine. "An RTLS may not be able to get the accuracy level required," he said. "Many systems can track to 10 or 20 feet of accuracy. But that may mean the difference between a tracked RFID tag being in one room versus another. And that is not good enough for most hospitals depending on what is being tracked. In comparison, passive RFID could be deployed as part of the RTLS system to supplement accuracy – or it could be deployed standalone. The key is that the hospital ends up with guaranteed room-level, or bed-level, accuracy."

Mike Nichols

Supply chain managers always must balance cost versus need, according to Mike Nichols, director of RFID, Intermec Technologies Corp., Everett, WA. "RTLS does not make sense for medications [as] the cost is too high," he said. "Bar coding does not make sense for tracking IV pumps. RFID comes close to being ubiquitous, but it requires work to isolate a single tag and cannot match the location ability of RTLS."

Vivian Funkhouser, principal, Global Healthcare Solutions, Motorola Solutions Inc., Schaumburg, IL, acknowledged that each asset tracking technology currently on the market has its benefits and limitations, which should motivate supply chain managers to develop a strategy that best fits their healthcare environment, workflows and budget.
 

Chart courtesy Motorola

Vivian Funkhouser

"Deploying RFID, including tags and readers, or ensuring ubiquitous Wi-Fi coverage in all corners of the facility for successful RTLS may prove to be too costly or require a lengthy implementation process," she noted. "In that case, bar coding may prove to be a much more cost-effective technology. In fact, bar coding will always be the standard for such applications as medication administration or patient tracking. On the other hand, many assets such as infusion pumps or blood monitors, which are in constant use across a healthcare facility and constitute higher-value assets, may be much better suited for an investment in RFID or RTLS."

John Mateka, FAHRMM, executive director, supply chain operations, Greenville (SC) Health System, understands the decision challenges all too well and prefers to work with RTLS vendors that can support multiple applications and brands.

John Mateka

"Passive RFID is limited in providing data elements for people processes," Mateka said. "Bar coding has limitations in telling a manager where a piece of equipment resides. RTLS has limitations in both network developments as well as tag costs alone. There is no single technology that will solve all the tracking and workflow problems that exist. Only through a careful analysis of what a specific problem is and then comparing that to the most appropriate use of the technology can the maximum ROI be gained.

"Management should not buy a technology to cure all the workflow and tracking problems because it may not provide the solution to all the problems," he added. "Using a single technology limits the solutions that might be developed to solve the different process challenges facing healthcare today."  

New Technology

The ignored virus that causes liver cancer; Should we be screening blood for Hepatitis G?

Hepatitis G virus was identified in 1995. Some little research was carried out on the virus and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declared it a non-harmful virus in 1997. Researchers in Saudi Arabia, writing in the International Journal of Immunological Studies present evidence to suggest that this may have been the wrong decision. They claim that transmission of the virus through donated blood that was not screened for the virus as well as infection through other routes has led to an increase in cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer.

Hepatitis G virus (HGV) was renamed as GB virus C (GBV-C) and is a virus in the Flaviviridae family but has not yet been assigned to a genus. Intriguingly, some evidence suggests that co-infection with the AIDS virus, HIV, somehow enhances the immune system in those patients. However, it is the effects of the virus on the livers of otherwise healthy patients that are of concern to Mughis Uddin Ahmed of the King Abdulaziz Hospital (NGHA) in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia. He points out that since the FDA declared the virus not to cause health problems to humans in 1997, no donated blood has been screened for this virus.

However, Mughis Uddin Ahmed has carried out a review of the scientific literature for the last 16 years that show the virus to be quite prevalent around the globe. Moreover, there is a correlation with infection with this virus and hepatitis, cirrhosis of the liver and it is possibly linked to hepatocellular carcinoma. He advises that screening of donated blood for this virus should be reinstated urgently.

U.S. blood supply vulnerable to parasitic infection spread by ticks

Babesia, a tickborne parasite of red blood cells, is being transmitted through blood transfusions, according to results of a collaborative study, led by the CDC, of data from the past three decades. Transfusion–associated cases of babesiosis have been increasingly recognized since 1979, the year the first known case occurred. In the report, CDC and collaborators describe 159 transfusion–related babesiosis cases that occurred during 1979–2009, most (77 percent) from 2000 to 2009. No Babesia test approved by the Food and Drug Administration is available for screening prospective blood donors, who can feel fine despite being infected.