RFID Tags Found to Interfere With Hospital Equipment

A new study claims that radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs), increasingly being used in hospitals to identify patients and track medical supplies, are interfering with medical equipment such as pacemakers and ventilators, and may be putting patient safety, and sometimes lives, at risk.

Researchers at the University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands) tested a total of 41 medical devices such as ventilators, syringe pumps, dialysis machines, and pacemakers, in 17 different categories from 22 different manufacturers during May 2006. The researchers used two types of RFID equipment, active and passive (active RFID tags transmit information whereas the passive type of RFID has to be read by a special receiver). Incidents of interference were classed into three types: hazardous, significant, or light.

The researchers found that in 123 tests (3 per medical device), RFIDs induced 34 incidents. Of these, 22 were classified as hazardous, 2 as significant, and 10 as light. The passive (868-MHz) RFID signal induced more incidents (26 incidents in 41 tests; 63%) compared with the active (125-kHz) RFID signal (8 incidents in 41 tests; 20%). The passive RFID signal interfered with 26 medical devices, including 8 that were also affected by the active RFID signal. The median distance between the RFID reader and the medical device in all incidents was 30 centimeters. The researchers recommended that implementation of RFID in the critical care environment should require on-site electromagnetic interference (EMI) tests and updates to current international standards. The study was published in the June 24, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

"The findings should not dissuade hospitals from using a technology but they underscore the need to make sure wireless signals are safe for patients,” said co-author Erik Jan van Lieshout, M.D. "We don't want to induce a ban on RFID in healthcare because it has real potential; but like other wireless signals it could endanger your equipment, and thus your patient.”


Related Links:
University of Amsterdam