Active vs. Passive RFID Choice Must Be Driven by Business Case
The healthcare world, like other industries, sees an increased number of demonstrated benefits out of implementing RFID (radio frequency identification). However, unlike most other sectors of the economy, healthcare faces unique challenges because it handles people, not goods. While manufacturing or retailing mostly use passive technology, the more expensive active RFID devices can prove useful to keep track of expensive mobile devices, patients or staff. As they are not self-powered, passive IDs need to be scanned with external devices, and typically end up being used on product pallets following initiatives from companies such as Wal-Mart. Active devices on the other hand broadcast their location but cost-per-tag is significantly higher, which brings cost/benefit questions. Hospitals need to look at the cost structure of the processes they are aiming to improve, as well as ponder potential impact on outcome.
For instance George Morley, director of biomedical engineering at healthcare system PinnacleHealth, Harrisburg, PA, is raving about the return on investment earned by the Radianse active system rolled out at Harrisburg Hospital. Such deployments with more expensive costs in absolute numbers can pay back faster when they are able to improve core metrics such as ARPP (average revenue per patient) or length of stay, or address mundane but lasting problems such as wheelchairs that are never where they’re supposed to be, thus forcing personnel to waste time chasing them down. Meanwhile, passive RFID is not always competitive with older-tech barcodes to track cheap consumables.
See Healthcare Informatics for more.
March 28, 2006 Related topics: Wireless, IT & software