Search Results

The Pump Connectivity Interface is a computerized wireless patient information and medication management tool that is integrated into an existing hospital network infrastructure and allows communications with external devices, including personal computers (PCs), Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) or similar display/computing devices, hospital monitoring systems, and Hospital Information Management Systems (HIMS). Communication of data includes infusion parameters, system configuration, history, events, trending, alarms and status. It is intended for use in professional healthcare environments that use electronic, external infusion devices.

The Pump Connectivity Interface is intended to provide trained healthcare practitioners access to additional information needed to more safely manage infusion therapy via infusion pumps. lt enables remote viewing of pump status within the hospital and enables comparisons of pharmacyentered prescription information to programmed pump settings. All data entry and validation of infusion parameters is performed by the trained healthcare professional according to a physician's order.

The Pump Connectivity Interface also enables secondary notification of pump alerts and alarms to remote users via a personal digital assistant (PDA) or similar display/computing device.

The Pump Connectivity Interface is intended for use by trained healthcare practitioners in accordance with the instructions provided in Pump Connectivity Interface labeling.

The Pump Connectivity Interface has been developed to expand upon previously cleared external monitoring features of legally marketed infusion pumps. As described above, the Pump Connectivity Interface is a system of hardware and software that enables external infusion pumps to be integrated into existing hospital network infrastructure. It is intended to provide trained healthcare practitioners with access to additional information needed to more safely manage infusion therapy via external infusion pumps.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Baxter Healthcare Corporation's Pump Connectivity Interface:

Crucial Observation: The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Pump Connectivity Interface). It primarily aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not necessarily to provide detailed performance study results against specific acceptance criteria. This type of document typically focuses on comparing technological characteristics and stating that performance data "indicate that the device will meet specified requirements" without detailing those requirements or the studies themselves.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, specific study designs, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, and MRMC studies are not available in the provided text. The document is at a high level of regulatory summary.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As noted above, specific, quantitative acceptance criteria and detailed device performance metrics are not explicitly stated in this 510(k) summary. The document makes a high-level statement: "The performance data indicate that the device will meet specified requirements and is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."

Therefore, a table cannot be constructed with the information provided. The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly that the device's performance is deemed sufficient to establish substantial equivalence to the predicate devices and meet safety and effectiveness requirements.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication Method: Not specified.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• MRMC Study: The document does not mention an MRMC comparative effectiveness study. The device is a "Pump Connectivity Interface" for managing infusion therapy, enabling remote viewing and alarm notification, rather than an AI-powered diagnostic tool that human readers would interpret. Its primary function is data communication and display, not interpretation that would involve "human readers."
• Effect Size of Human Reader Improvement: Not applicable, as no MRMC study is mentioned or relevant given the device type.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done

• Standalone Performance: The document does not describe a "standalone" performance study in the context of an algorithm's diagnostic accuracy. The device's function inherently involves human interaction, as it provides "trained healthcare practitioners access to additional information" and "enables comparisons of pharmacy-entered prescription information to programmed pump settings." It's a connectivity and information display tool, not an autonomous decision-making algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Type of Ground Truth: Not specified. Given the nature of the device (connectivity and information management for infusion pumps), "ground truth" would likely relate to the accuracy of data transmission, display, and alarm notification, rather than a clinical diagnosis confirmed by pathology or outcomes data. It would probably involve validation against direct pump readings or simulated scenarios.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not specified. The document does not mention the use of machine learning or AI that would typically involve a "training set."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Ground Truth Establishment for Training Set: Not applicable, as the document does not mention a training set in the context of machine learning.

Summary of Missing Information:

This 510(k) summary provides a high-level overview for regulatory clearance based on substantial equivalence. It does not contain the granular detail about specific performance studies, sample sizes, expert involvement, or ground truth methodologies that would be required to answer most of your detailed questions. For a medical device like this in November 2004, the focus was heavily on demonstrating that the new device's technological characteristics and intended use were comparable to existing, legally marketed devices, and that it met basic safety and performance requirements without specifying the exact metrics or detailed study designs for those requirements.

Ask a specific question about this device