Evaluating and Selecting Video Equipment for the OR - operating room

AORN Journal, Dec, 1999 by Jean Workman, Cheryl Vrabel

REFERRAL LIST

As part of the decision-making process, it was extremely important to know that the company selected would be available to address the technical aspects of instituting and maintaining the equipment and help solve any problems. To gain insight into this, we wanted recommendations from other users of the video systems, and we requested a list of facility referrals from each company. We spoke with a person from each reference site regarding length of ownership, service and support by the company, and reliability of the equipment. The references were asked to rate each category as excellent, average, or poor (Table 5). We also contacted Morton Plant Hospital's biomedical engineering department to gain information regarding the video products, including the service and support by the company and reliability of the equipment.

Table 5 VIDEO REFERRAL SUMMARY

Company A (Eight hospitals contacted)
Length of ownership: Two to six years

                Excellent    Average       Poor

Service             3           3           2
Reliability         8

Company B (Seven hospitals contacted)
Length of ownership: Two to seven years

                Excellent    Average       Poor

Service             7
Reliability         7

Company C (Three hospitals contacted)
Length of ownership: Zero to six years

                Excellent    Average       Poor

Service             1           1           1
Reliability         2                       1

Company D (Three hospitals contacted)
Length of ownership: Two to four years

                Excellent    Average       Poor

Service             3
Reliability         3

Company E (Seven hospitals contacted)
Length of ownership: One to seven years

                Excellent    Average       Poor

Service             3           2           2
Reliability         6                       1

QUOTES

We then requested quotes from each company, which were to include the price of the individual components instead of the price of the entire video systems. This enabled us to compare the prices of the components of each company. When compared to the specification sheet, we were able to identify discrepancies (ie, different models quoted from what were evaluated).

FINAL PRESENTATION

All five companies had an opportunity to give a final presentation of their systems. Representatives of the purchasing department and senior management typically attend meetings of this caliber. We found that some companies were very interested in who would be in attendance, as some might have tried to use the opportunity to present additional considerations beyond the scope of the considered purchase (eg, other products available, better prices on consumable products, a partnership with the company).

In actuality, only we attended these meetings with the representatives of the companies. We viewed these meetings as our last opportunity to familiarize ourselves with their equipment, rather than their opportunity to make a sale. We began the meetings by discussing warranties, service and support, and repairs and by asking any remaining questions regarding the equipment. At this time, we addressed any discrepancies between the products' final quote and the features on the specification sheet. For example, two companies were found to have quoted a product of lesser capabilities than what was originally specified. These companies agreed to sell us the products originally specified and evaluated for the same price as the products quoted, which had fewer capabilities.