Mobile phones is hospitals

From <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5177860.stm>:

"Hospitals told not to ban mobiles

Hospitals should not impose blanket bans on mobile phones, regulators
say.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said
there was confusion over whether phones ought to be banned outright.

Its experts said they should be restricted only where specialist
equipment was used, as in intensive care and specialist baby units.

They said there was a small risk of interference. Bans are currently
decided on individually by hospitals.

However, many NHS trusts have introduced outright bans and the British
Medical Association has called on doctors to be allowed to use phones,
but not the public.

The MHRA said it was introducing the guidance after a series of
enquiries from NHS staff and patients.

It said there had been 10 reports in the last decade of mobiles
interfering with infusion pumps, used to administer fluids."

--
Martin Jay
Phone/SMS: +44 7740 191877
Fax: +44 870 915 2124

---

› See More: Mobile phones is hospitals

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:55:13 +0100, Martin Jay
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hospitals should not impose blanket bans on mobile phones, regulators
>say.

They said that ten years ago, but with the profits from payphones,
hospitals didn't take any notice.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

[email protected] wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:55:13 +0100, Martin Jay
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Hospitals should not impose blanket bans on mobile phones, regulators
> >say.
>
> They said that ten years ago, but with the profits from payphones,
> hospitals didn't take any notice.

Most hospitals I have been in have designated mobile phone areas

C! wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:55:13 +0100, Martin Jay
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Hospitals should not impose blanket bans on mobile phones, regulators
> > >say.
> >
> > They said that ten years ago, but with the profits from payphones,
> > hospitals didn't take any notice.
>
> Most hospitals I have been in have designated mobile phone areas

Usually outside, been to about 20 or so hospitals over the last few
years and they all had blanket bans.

As I have posted previously on this matter, my wife regularly calls me
from her clinics. If you look at any hospital you will usually see a
brace of antennae on the roof! The doctors and other staff have pagers.
There are TV, radio and mobile waves bouncing all over the place yet
blanket bans are in place.

I believe the reasons for the blanket bans are several fold:

1. There is a threat of mobiles affecting critical equipment and rather
than assess the risk they impose the ban.
2. If someone dies due to mobile interference (remote possibility, but
a possibility) the hospital will find itself liable if they are sued
(and in today's litigious society that will happen) unless they can put
up a defence that the useage was banned.
3. The revenue from the payphones and especially Patientline
4. Chavs having telephone conversations at the top of their voice and
stupid frog ringtones blaring out all over the place.

Regards

zacnici wrote:

> 1. There is a threat of mobiles affecting critical equipment and
> rather than assess the risk they impose the ban.

The Medical Physics department of Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham did a
study and found that the Nokia 3120 did not affect medical equipment.

> 3. The revenue from the payphones and especially Patientline

A huge moneyspinner for them, especially considering the cost of calling a
Patientline number (70p/min IIRC)

> 4. Chavs having telephone conversations at the top of their voice and
> stupid frog ringtones blaring out all over the place.

I couldn't think of anything worse if I was trying to relax and recuperate
in hospital...

--
Abo

www.pickuptruckracing.com

'You see, birds fall from the windowledge above mine
Then they flap their wings at the last second'

I was in Hospital last April and they had no problems with me using my
mobile..

Most of the problems with mobiles was before it switched over to the Digital
GSM networks...

Abo wrote:
> zacnici wrote:
>
>> 1. There is a threat of mobiles affecting critical equipment and
>> rather than assess the risk they impose the ban.
>
> The Medical Physics department of Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham did a
> study and found that the Nokia 3120 did not affect medical equipment.

Which medical equipment? There's hundreds or thousands of different
makes and models of electronic medical equipment. Then there's lots of
different makes and models of phones (each with different EM
characteristics). So, whilst limiting the study to a 3120, they're not
going to be able to limit the use of mobiles to just 3120's.

>> 3. The revenue from the payphones and especially Patientline
>
> A huge moneyspinner for them, especially considering the cost of calling a
> Patientline number (70p/min IIRC)

The hospital do not (usually) get funds directly from the running of
Patientcall services. Usually Patientcall etc will pay a fixed fee to
the hospital for a period, pay the installation and equipment costs, and
then make any profit from the operation.

Very similar to what NTL have done at a number of university campuses.

D

In message <[email protected]>, Abo
<[email protected]> writes
>zacnici wrote:
>> 1. There is a threat of mobiles affecting critical equipment and
>> rather than assess the risk they impose the ban.

>The Medical Physics department of Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham did a
>study and found that the Nokia 3120 did not affect medical equipment.

I know the subject of mobile phone *in* hospitals has been done to death
here. However, I posted part of article because it seemed to indicate
there is no evidence that mobile phones interfere with medical
equipment. The one exception being infusion pumps, but even then the
risk seems low. Presumably steps could be taken to improve their
shielding or prevent mobile phones being used around them.
--
Martin Jay
Phone/SMS: +44 7740 191877
Fax: +44 870 915 2124

Martin Jay wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Abo
> <[email protected]> writes
>> zacnici wrote:
>>> 1. There is a threat of mobiles affecting critical equipment and
>>> rather than assess the risk they impose the ban.
>
>> The Medical Physics department of Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham
>> did a
>> study and found that the Nokia 3120 did not affect medical equipment.
>
> I know the subject of mobile phone *in* hospitals has been done to death
> here. However, I posted part of article because it seemed to indicate
> there is no evidence that mobile phones interfere with medical
> equipment. The one exception being infusion pumps, but even then the
> risk seems low. Presumably steps could be taken to improve their
> shielding or prevent mobile phones being used around them.

Don't forget though that it's not just infusion pumps - it also affects
syringe pumps too (eg. those used for controlled morphine delivery where
overdoses can be fatal, or for other medication which the removal or
reduction of can also be fatal).

http://www.health-physics.com/pt/re/...4000-00005.htm

"Malfunctions were observed in 6 out of 8 volumetric pumps and in 1 out
of 4 syringe pumps exposed to mobile phones at their maximum output, at
distances up to 30 cm. The maximum power that did not induce any
malfunction at zero distance was 50 mW at 900 MHz and 2.5 mW at 1,800
MHz. In state-of-the-art pumps, the presence of moderate-good base
station coverage would significantly reduce the risk of electromagnetic
interference."

So, 75% of volumetric pumps were affected and 25% of syringe pumps,
although these were with the phones on full power less than 30cm away.

D

"zacnici" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 3. The revenue from the payphones and especially Patientline

The hospital does not receive any revenue from Patientline phone calls -
Patientline themselves receive the money and in return installed the phones
for free in NHS hospitals. The government wanted patients to have access to
individual phones (some stupid target) which clearly they couldn't afford,
so companies like Patientline install them in return for the revenue. I'd
much rather a hospital spent its money looking after the patients that
providing cheap phone calls. After all, health care is extremely expensive
and you don't get a bill when you leave so why do people get so worked up at
paying for phone calls? For example, the staffing and facilities to look
after one patient in a standard hospital bed for one day is several hundred
pounds before they even have any tests or other things done to them (and
£1000-2000 for an intensive care bed).

JP

Jeremy Porteous wrote:
> "zacnici" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>3. The revenue from the payphones and especially Patientline
>
>

> After all, health care is extremely expensive
> and you don't get a bill when you leave so why do people get so worked up at
> paying for phone calls?
>

Because some people are having to pay even to receive calls at rates
that make International Mobile Roaming look cheap.


--
Dave C

"Dave C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Because some people are having to pay even to receive calls at rates that
> make International Mobile Roaming look cheap.

I don't believe this is true as you don't have to pay to receive calls.
Admittedly, the caller may have to pay a higher rate to call you. However,
they are paying for the convenience of being able to contact someone
directly in hospital. I personally do not think the telephone charges as
big an issue as they are made out to be.

JP

David Hearn wrote:
> Abo wrote:
>> zacnici wrote:
>>
>>> 1. There is a threat of mobiles affecting critical equipment and
>>> rather than assess the risk they impose the ban.
>>
>> The Medical Physics department of Queens Medical Centre in
>> Nottingham did a study and found that the Nokia 3120 did not affect
>> medical equipment.
>
> Which medical equipment? There's hundreds or thousands of different
> makes and models of electronic medical equipment. Then there's lots
> of different makes and models of phones (each with different EM
> characteristics). So, whilst limiting the study to a 3120, they're
> not going to be able to limit the use of mobiles to just 3120's.

Dunno which equipment they tested; I assume all as they certified the 3120
as safe to use throughout hospital premises.

The 3120 was studied as this was to be their workhorse phone of choice.

>>> 3. The revenue from the payphones and especially Patientline
>>
>> A huge moneyspinner for them, especially considering the cost of
>> calling a Patientline number (70p/min IIRC)
>
> The hospital do not (usually) get funds directly from the running of
> Patientcall services. Usually Patientcall etc will pay a fixed fee to
> the hospital for a period, pay the installation and equipment costs,
> and then make any profit from the operation.
>
> Very similar to what NTL have done at a number of

Interesting; didn't know this was the case. It would seem Patientline are
able to capitalise on hospital policy

--
Abo

www.pickuptruckracing.com

'You see, birds fall from the windowledge above mine
Then they flap their wings at the last second'

Jeremy Porteous wrote:
> "Dave C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Because some people are having to pay even to receive calls at rates that
>> make International Mobile Roaming look cheap.
>
> I don't believe this is true as you don't have to pay to receive calls.
> Admittedly, the caller may have to pay a higher rate to call you. However,
> they are paying for the convenience of being able to contact someone
> directly in hospital. I personally do not think the telephone charges as
> big an issue as they are made out to be.
>
> JP
>
>
Can;t remember the charge, but my daughter had to pay when she was in

--
Dave C

In message <[email protected]>,
Jeremy Porteous <[email protected]> writes
>"zacnici" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 3. The revenue from the payphones and especially Patientline

>The hospital does not receive any revenue from Patientline phone calls -
>Patientline themselves receive the money and in return installed the phones
>for free in NHS hospitals. The government wanted patients to have access to
>individual phones (some stupid target) which clearly they couldn't afford,
>so companies like Patientline install them in return for the revenue. I'd
>much rather a hospital spent its money looking after the patients that
>providing cheap phone calls.

But patient care isn't only about healing physical wounds. Being able
to stay in touch with relatives and friends my help patients recover
quicker, saving the NHS money and allow more people to be treated.

I don't think people expect the phone calls to be free, but I think they
feel exploited when there is only one way to telephone friends and
relatives in hospital, and that's to use a premium rate number.

MPs are aware of this, see
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5187740.stm>. Perhaps there will be
changes:

"The health select committee report also attacked bedside phone charges,
with incoming calls costing up to 49p a minute, calling the cost of
receiving calls from relatives and friends "insupportable".

Last year, telecoms regulator Ofcom investigated the charges set by
Patientline, the company that provides bedside phone, TV and internet
services, after complaints that they were too high."

But:

"But Ofcom found the price levels stemmed from the terms of the licences
issued by the Department of Health."
--
Martin Jay
Phone/SMS: +44 7740 191877
Fax: +44 870 915 2124