EBME


technicians were ‘protected’, in the event that something went wrong in the future. “Critical systems and their integration are


really important – we all want the device information to go to the EPR system. But without this specialist knowledge, it is really challenging,” the clinical engineering lead continued. Other clinical engineering thought leaders


around the room commented that they had found integration into the EPR extremely challenging and added that they had encountered hurdles within their Trusts when seeking the cooperation from IT colleagues. There appeared to be a divide between the two departments, which some perceived to be unhelpful, and it was clear that efforts will be required to build relationships and bridge this gap in the future. This was further illustrated by an account


from another clinical engineering lead who said that, when they needed help from the IT department and this was flagged as ‘urgent’, the response would often take as long as four days. If it is not flagged as urgent, the response could take weeks, however. They observed that getting IT training and even getting permission to use or access a system is proving to be a significant hurdle to achieving connectivity and integration in the EPR. It was acknowledged that some Trusts are


ahead of the game in terms of digitisation of patient records and integration. While the group could see the enormous potential that this increased connectivity could bring, there was an air of despondency around the challenges that need to be overcome. The frustration in the room was apparent. One individual remarked that digitisation and


integration of medical technologies into patient records had “been on their Trust’s agenda for a few years now”, but they were “yet to see a completed project”. With regards to ‘connectivity engines’, another


clinical engineering lead commented that they needed to “rewrite the software to get it to work properly”, but IT said: “it’s nothing to do with us”. “Surely, they should have some involvement?” they remarked. “It is impossible to get any engagement!”


Building bridges At one Trust, a three-tiered approach has been adopted successfully. In this scenario, the clinical


engineering team is responsible for anything up to the network; then there is a medical device integration team who are responsible for integrating the clinical data into the patient record; and, finally, the IT department looks after the server, etc. All three departments “talk to each other” and this arrangement has proven successful.


Others suggested the use of external


contractors to overcome the issue of integration; once the system is set up, clinical engineering and IT can share responsibility. The question also arose: should EBME departments become more involved with software as a medical device? One individual reported that their EBME department and IT had worked together on a joint partnership and recruited a biomedical engineer, who had extensive IT knowledge. He works very closely with the IT department and cybersecurity, to manage the medical devices that are connected to the network, the software that is linked into the medical devices, and he also assists with departments completing Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs), for example. They have low level access to systems and this approach is working well. “He has saved us a lot of headaches in getting


systems implemented and new projects - such as ICU monitoring,” the clinical engineering lead explained. “We identified that there was a desperate need for the role. We were continually being blocked by IT. We wanted to implement the latest systems and these all require integration


Clinical engineering thought leaders around the room commented that they had found integration into the EPR extremely challenging and added that they had encountered hurdles.


into the network. So, we worked collaboratively with IT to develop a job description for the skills required and we interviewed the candidate together.” Building relationships and tackling a culture


of working in silos was a dominant theme throughout the thought leadership workshop, but one individual highlighted an effective strategy at their own Trust, which helped to increase the visibility of clinical engineering across traditional professional boundaries. They practised ‘rounding’ – which meant that the team would go onto a department and say: “good morning”. Being present has helped to identify any issues. “Twice a week I visit theatres in the morning and see how they set up the room and build relationships. We did a survey of our service and the feedback showed that ‘rounding’ was viewed positively and valued,” he commented.


Banding frustrations Another attendee pointed out that the NHS banding for clinical engineers is limited when compared to the IT industry. Therefore, when they put their clinical engineers through significant connectivity training, they are often ‘poached’ by big tech/IT companies, as the renumeration is more attractive. “We all work for the NHS because it is a public service and there is a sense of pride about that – but, ultimately, if you have a young family and you are feeling the pressures of the cost of living, you are going to be tempted to go where the money is,” she commented. “We are trying to develop clinical engineers,


in a range of aspects; one minute they may be electrical safety testing and the next they may be dealing with clinical applications, IT and connectivity. So, should there be a different grading system to reflect their development of


September 2024 I www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 21


t


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80