Lost and Found: Why the 5 Critical Success Factors for RTLS in Healthcare Really Matter
I just came across an article in
Health Facilities Management digital magazine called
“Lost + Found” written by
Alan Dash, associate partner at
Syska Hennessy Group. Originally published in November 2009, it only surfaced in my Google® alerts last week. Nonetheless, I found the article interesting because it highlights the importance of the
5 Critical Success Factors for RTLS (1. Enterprise-wide coverage, 2. Real-time, room-level location accuracy, 3. Minimally invasive installation and low total cost of ownership, 4. Interoperability and 5. Flexible, proven business model) for healthcare.
Dash's article focuses on hospitals and healthcare systems, and installation of
tracking systems for equipment, personnel and patients. It attempts to explain both passive RFID and real-time location system (RTLS) use cases. The author tries to answer the question whether a health care facility needs the real-time locating power of RTLS or if it can be satisfied with the spot-locating ability of a simpler RFID system.
You can read the entire article here.
In my opinion, the piece doesn’t really go deep enough to understand the very distinct and separate use cases applicable to passive RFID vs. RTLS, but overall, the evaluation steps outlined make sense:
1. Form a committee of all stakeholders that may be impacted
2. Make a checklist of all items that you believe warrant coverage by the location system
3. Consider the use cases that have the best opportunity for return on investment
4. Consider current practices, and understand the main “pain points” of each of your stakeholder groups
5. Decide on the level of detail needed for each use case (the author is referring to location accuracy and concludes that the more granular the search, the more the search costs).
I do disagree with the author on a couple of key points: First, Dash states that you should
“determine if the entire campus, the main hospital building or a few key areas within a building need to be covered. Go small, prove the concept, check the return on investment and then take the next step.”
In our experience, a system for the mobile equipment tracking challenges represented in the piece will not prove its value if the network is available only in a few key areas of the building. When evaluating a passive RFID solution to solve a very specific problem, such as counting and verifying the number of items in surgical trays, or supply chain inventory management for disposables used in the operating room, this might work.
But with RTLS for mobile equipment management, if the entire enterprise is not covered, it can take as little as a few days for staff to understand the coverage areas, and for tagged items to again go missing, or be hidden, in these uncovered areas. This completely defeats the use cases outlined for a real-time location system. Physical assets such as carts, wheelchairs, beds, pumps, vents and specific types of medical devices move throughout the entire facility. Visibility into the real-time location of these assets is critical to most hospital use cases for RTLS.
Equipment hoarding is another area mentioned. As Dash states: “
Hoarding is another potential driver and hiding medical equipment is about as much of a problem in health care as the nurse shortage. When staff locates a normally hard-to-get item, they will sometimes hide it in a closet, medication room, clean supply space or any number of other places where no one else can find it. Hoarding costs money—equipment that does not "exist" cannot be counted and therefore needs to be replaced.”
Again, with an equipment tracking network that only covers a few key areas of the building, or shows only the last known location of an item, the hoarding problem cannot be effectively addressed. Hiding places can and will continue to exist without an enterprise-wide tracking network.
In addition, staff adoption of tracking technology is grossly impacted when there are missing coverage areas in the enterprise. Consider a nurse searching for a piece of equipment that is “
off the map” (e.g., outside the networked coverage area). Staff likely won’t understand items can only be found if they exist in a particular key area of the building, they will simply assume the system doesn’t work.
I am in complete agreement with Dash that hospitals can go small, prove the concept, and check the ROI before taking the next step. However, with RTLS, starting small should be focused on a particular class of equipment, for example, all IV pumps; or all wheelchairs and gurneys. This “
go small, prove the concept” approach is reflected in the number of tags initially purchased, but should still include enterprise-wide network coverage to truly assess the value.
The other area I’m in conflict with is “
Of course the more granular the search, the more the search costs. Most location systems can get granular because the manufacturer adds more access points. Associated with these additional access points are electrical costs, operational costs and maintenance costs.”
Dash seems to be assuming Wi-Fi-based RTLS systems are the only option available to hospitals. For Wi-Fi-based systems, additional access points, secondary technologies, electrical costs, operational costs and maintenance costs can all add to the total cost of ownership. But, there are other technologies, purpose-built for RTLS, where these factors do not exist. Since this is the AwarepointBlog, I’ll point to
ZigBee-based technologies, but there are others as well…
In my extensive experience with RTLS in healthcare, the
5 critical success factors are key to long term clinical and financial outcomes. These critical success factors remain:
1. Enterprise-wide coverage
2. Real-time, room-level location accuracy
3. Minimally invasive installation and low total cost of ownership
4. Interoperability
5. Flexible, proven business model
There is a proven return on investment for RTLS in healthcare for mobile equipment management if these 5 Critical Success Factor practices are followed. Awarepoint has demonstrated time and time again in documented cost-saving metrics associated with Tracking, Rentals, Utilization, Shrinkage and Temperature Monitoring of mobile equipment assets. Revenue generating use cases like operating room management, bed management, and emergency department workflows are beginning to get traction as well.
As always, I’d love to hear from hospitals that have implemented, or are considering implementing, tracking systems. What are the key factors in your assessment of this technology?