There are some enabling technologies that I guess even GS1 compliance can’t enable.
In another devastating blow to passive RFID adoption — and adopting RFID labeling has been touted heavily in the past by GS1 – none other than the Journal of the AMA (JAMA) came out with a study that shows RFID is hazardous to patient health. Hello? Didn’t anyone test or think about the RFI in RFID before putting them next to devices at the patient bedside? This quote from the study sums it up:
“Results: In 123 EMI tests (3 per medical device), RFID induced 34 EMI incidents: 22 were classified as hazardous, 2 as significant, and 10 as light.”
When they define hazardous, they cite:
“Among the hazardous incidences, a mechanical ventilator switched off, a syringe pump stopped, and an external pacemaker malfunctioned.”
Additional note: someone in the know on this topic advised me he had actually seen RFID RFI cause an infusion pump to run backwards
Filed under: GS1, Global Standards, Hospital
The article fails to reference the use of high frequency (HF) passive RFID technology. This technology differs from those stated in the document in that it is passive (not active) and it is near field (1 meter max). High frequency RFID systems are widely used, especially in hospitals (where it does not interfere with the existing equipment). The HF frequency range is accepted worldwide.
The study was conducted in Denmark. The study does mention HF passive tags. The study was not conducted in a hospital (which, unbelievably, has been used by some to criticize the results).
From what I’ve read, they used more than one frequency range and all ranges tested induced catastrophic issues. Had the failing device been in actual use on a patient, they would have been at mortal risk (or at least, some dreadful change in morbidity). Curiously, the greater rate of device failures from the RFI occured in passive systems, not active.
I, too, would have thought active would’ve caused more trouble. That is not what the study showed. I don’t know if it is the pulse that fires up the passive tag, the backscatter or what, nor do I believe the intent of the study was to identify cause so much as presence of effect, which I would say they did.
As to the testing of passive RFID, from the study:
“The passive 868-MHz RFID signal induced a higher number of incidents (26 incidents in 41 EMI tests; 63%) compared with the active 125-kHz RFID signal (8 incidents in 41 EMI tests; 20%); difference 44% (95% confidence interval, 27%-53%; P < .001). The passive 868-MHz RFID signal induced EMI in 26 medical devices, including 8 that were also affected by the active 125-kHz RFID signal (26 in 41 devices; 63%). The median distance between the RFID reader and the medical device in all EMI incidents was 30 cm (range, 0.1-600 cm). ”
Neither I nor Loftware have a horse in this race: our software is designed to create and support the production of RFID smart labels along with all manner of other labels.
What I found most stunning about the study — and that is reflected in my tone — is the fact that we’re only now testing the issue of RFI in an environment where you can’t even carry a celphone? How did this happen? How was this so overlooked it was never even tested?
If you have issues with the study, you should address those directly with the authors (they are cited at the head of report we linked to).