RFID Tags Can Interfere With Medical Devices 120
An anonymous reader writes "A new study suggests RFID systems can cause 'potentially hazardous incidents in medical devices.' (Here is the JAMA study's abstract.) Among other things, electrical interference changed breathing machines' ventilation rates and caused syringe pumps to stop. Some hospitals have already begun using RFID tags to track a wide variety of medical devices, but the new finding suggests the systems may have unintended consequences."
This is too much (Score:2, Insightful)
The radio frequency identification, or RFID, is an inherently flawed idea [wikipedia.org]. It is a technological solution to a social problem that it created. It is a threat to our security [cnet.com], our privacy [junkbusters.com], our freedom [spychips.com], and now also our health! And this is not a just conspiracy theory. Some of the most respectable members of our society are protesting against RFID technology, including Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] and even Richard Stallman [stallman.org]. My only question is, how much more insult to our intelligence can we take as a society before we start actively protesting? Our freedom, our privacy, our health and our dignity is being taken from us and all we can do is complain on the Internet? Where are the protesting groups? Where are the outraged people desperate to change the situation? Where are the angry mobs? What else are we going to let them take away from us before we stop talking and start acting?
Interference in medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting -- Slashdot has talked about this kind of thing before and I remember responding:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234315&cid=19078365 [slashdot.org]
Every time I read something like this I get a bit frustrated. I can't paste the whole article for copyright reasons, but I am hoping a kind AC will. Either way, the gist of the article is that when very close (some have interference "distances" of 0.1 cm) RFID active readers / transmitters may interfere with some medical equipment.
The interobserver variability in the study was high, and they defined an event very broadly, essentially as any change in the operation of a device. It is a bit aggressive -- and I fear that good technology may inadvertently be stifled for "interference" concerns...
Re:This is too much (Score:2, Insightful)
By merely asking the questions and and taking an outraged tone you're really doing no more than the people you're chastising. Instead of making vague mentions of what "we" should do, name a time and a place for people in your area to congregate and discuss action to take, and perhaps set up a website to help others in their area do the same.
I don't disagree with your sentiment one bit, which is why I encourage you to take your own advice.
If you're now thinking that I'm a hypocrite for not doing the same I'll simply point out that I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic for this particular issue, but when it comes to taking action against this here I'll be more then happy to do my part.
Hazardous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is too much (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Because "quickly locating a very expensive portable medical device which may have been left in the wrong room in a 10,000-room hospital" is a problem that didn't exist before those evil overlords invented it. Heck, even the "gee it would be nice to track my supply chain better" problems are fundamentally real. And these things work.
You talk of privacy issues and such? Oh, you betcha! They're real. But you can't pretend it's not a useful technology. That is the real insult to intelligence in this thread.
Re:This is too much (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets take these points one by one. First, it is not a flawed idea, it is a flawed implementation. All privacy concerns can be easily mitigated, with or without cooperation from RFID manufacturers. Pop your undies in the microwave for ten seconds and they won't be reporting back to the mothership, don't worry. Second, they are a technological solution to a physical, not social problem: inventory tracking. The fact that they are being used in other ways does not change the fact that this is what they were invented for, and they do a good job keeping costs down and efficiency up.
Bruce was complaining about their use in passports. So, screen the passports so they can't be read unless opened. Besides the passport issue, here is Stallman's fear:
Full text without graphs (Score:1, Insightful)
Electromagnetic Interference From Radio Frequency Identification Inducing Potentially Hazardous Incidents in Critical Care Medical Equipment
Remko van der Togt, MSc; Erik Jan van Lieshout, MD; Reinout Hensbroek, MSc; E. Beinat, PhD; J. M. Binnekade, PhD; P. J. M. Bakker, MD, PhD
JAMA. 2008;299(24):2884-2890.
ABSTRACT
Context Health care applications of autoidentification technologies, such as radio frequency identification (RFID), have been proposed to improve patient safety and also the tracking and tracing of medical equipment. However, electromagnetic interference (EMI) by RFID on medical devices has never been reported.
Objective To assess and classify incidents of EMI by RFID on critical care equipment.
Design and Setting Without a patient being connected, EMI by 2 RFID systems (active 125 kHz and passive 868 MHz) was assessed under controlled conditions during May 2006, in the proximity of 41 medical devices (in 17 categories, 22 different manufacturers) at the Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Assessment took place according to an international test protocol. Incidents of EMI were classified according to a critical care adverse events scale as hazardous, significant, or light.
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. 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 lessthan .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).
Conclusions In a controlled nonclinical setting, RFID induced potentially hazardous incidents in medical devices. Implementation of RFID in the critical care environment should require on-site EMI tests and updates of international standards.
Applications of autoidentification technologies such as radio frequency identification (RFID) in everyday life include security access cards, electronic toll collection, and antitheft clips in retail clothing.1-2 RFID applications in health care have received increasing attention because of the potentially positive effect on patient safety and also on tracking and tracing of medical equipment and devices.2-11 The current expenditure levels on RFID systems within health care in the United States are estimated to be approximately $90 million per year12 with 10-year growth projections to $2 billion.13
Possible applications of RFID include drug blister packs, which could be intelligently marked to prevent drug counterfeiting; and the quality of blood products being monitored with temperature-sensitive RFID tags.2, 10 The decreasing size and cost of RFID tags also permits incorporation into surgical sponges, endoscopic capsules, and endotracheal tubes, as well as the development of a syringe-implantable glucose-sensing RFID microchip.3, 8-9,14
However, the array of literature that promotes RFID in health care is not accompanied by research on the safety of RFID technology within the health care environment.15 The potential for harmful electromagnetic interference (EMI) by electronic antitheft surveillance systems on implantable pacemakers and defibrillators has already been recognized, but EMI reports on critical care devices are lacking.16-17
The focus of the present study was to assess and classify incidents of EMI by RFID on critical care equipment.
Background
The study was part of a research project entitled "RFID in Health Care" that was initiated by the Dutch Ministry of Health18 in May 2006. The RFID application of interest was the tracking and tracing of blood products and expensive medical suppli
FUD and title errors (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you ignore this article's lack of specifics or detail (which makes it more or less FUD in my view), the title /. gave it is *flatly incorrect*. It's not the tags that are causing the interference; it is the reader/interrogator. These inexpensive passive UHF tags are just that, passive; it's the active (4W) signal that might be able to interfere.
Yes, there are serious concerns with RFID, but there's no point spreading vague FUD. In medical applications, interference obviously a very serious matter. Several groups are working on this problem, so how about we wait until we have solid results before we make up our minds?
The headline is wrong, as usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
The interference came from the readers not the tags. The tags are passive.
Pros and cons (Score:3, Insightful)
The field drops off at a square of distance, so a RFID reader at 10cm will have one hundredth the EM field of a reader at 1cm.
A huge % of medical deaths are due to human error (wrong drugs/dosage etc)and the correct use of RFID can go a long way to mitigate that. Clearly that would be offset if the RFID equipment was to interfere with equipment.
Medical devices should be designed to be highly robust to EM interference, but the flip side to that is that often the sensors need to be very sensitive to detect slight electrical signals in the body (pulse, brain activity etc). Still, it should be possible to design equipment that is not degraded by RFID readers.
Safety Recalls Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
The machines that suffered dangerous faults should be recalled and repaired. Keeping them away from RFID readers and other sources of rf will not suffice. The fact that rf interference could cause dangerous faults means that they contain design defects such that component failures or other sorts of damage or interference could also cause dangerous faults.
And yes, I have designed medical life support equipment, though not in this century.
Re:Safety Recalls Needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is too much (Score:5, Insightful)
I am on the same page as you. I suspect I am old enough to be one of the few people here who have had to do pre-IT work in my younger days. I once worked for a gigantic (800,000 sq ft) food distribution center. Many times, the outside of pallets "packages" would have the bar codes scraped off them due to handling with forklifts, lift-clamps, etc. If I had the option of just driving a big palette of food products through a scanning device that counted the products and gave me weights automatically, it would have added up to likely 10 hours of time saved per loader a week. Not to mention the hazards of having to get on and off an industrial lift repeatedly all day long, the shock to joints, the static discharge (sometimes reaching an 8" arc), and so on would have been nice to cut down on.
My impression with a lot of the folks who play a scared advocate on such technologies don't have much of a grasp of what the rest of the world has to put up with in their day-to-day experiences and could care less about their lives being easier, because, there *might* be some madman somewhere ready to spy on them given the chance. These same people probably do their banking online, have credit cards, and homes without decent security systems. Those are the real things to worry about, in my opinion.
This same line of thought often reminds me of the "sticking it to the man" attitude I see around here a lot. Like "It's about time Company X learned it's lesson", well, Company X doesn't usually learn a lesson. The individuals on the lower end of the employment ladder just get treated worse, while the shareholders and executives don't really have much to worry about. Or, "Corporate greed", got to love that one. It's the individual greed of many people combined with a lot of Joes trying to keep their households afloat. There I go rambling again.
Re:Well??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did I say impervious?
Nope.
We, instead, could detect false signals and ring a bell on what the designer thinks is "very bad input". These device guys know how the biology works, and what signals are just impossible. Instead of catching every last remnant of EM, they could catch errors and loudly warn the nurse/physician like INTERFERENCE DETECTED signal.
If there were bad EM detectors built into life-critical devices, FCC Part 18 solves that issue rather well.
Re:Oh, please (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, just stick an AOL CD in there with it. If the AOL CD is disabled, then so is your underwear. ;)
-Huck
Re:Oh, please (Score:3, Insightful)