Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(104 days)
Spacelabs Healthcare patient monitors, functioning as either bedside or central monitors; passively display data generated by Spacelabs Healthcare parameter modules, Flexports interfaces, and other SDLC based products in the form of waveform and numeric displays, trends and alarms. Key monitored parameters available on the model 91367, 91369, 91370 and 91387, when employing the Spacelabs Command Module, consist of ECG, respiration, invasive and noninvasive blood pressure, SpO2, temperature and cardiac output. Additional parameters and interfaces to other systems are also available depending on the parameter modules employed.
Spacelabs Healthcare patient monitors are intended to alert the user to alarm conditions that are reported by Spacelabs Healthcare parameter modules and/or other physiologic monitors via Flexport interfaces. These determine a) when an alarm condition is violated; b) the alarm priority (i.e. high, medium or low); c) alarm limits; and d) when to initiate and terminate alarm notifications. The patient monitors are also capable of displaying alarm conditions on other monitors that are on the network through the Alarm Watch feature.
Spacelabs Healthcare patient monitors may also function as a generic display or computer terminal. As a generic display or terminal, the patient monitors allow networkbased applications to open windows and display information on other networked monitors.
Spacelabs Healthcare patient monitors are also designed to communicate with a variety of external devices such as displays, network devices, serial devices, user input devices, audio systems, and local/remote recorders.
Spacelabs Healthcare patient monitors are intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by personnel trained in proper use of the equipment in a hospital environment.
The Spacelabs Medical Patient Monitors are a component of the Spacelabs Medical Patient Monitoring System. The four (4) monitor models 91367, 91369 and 91370 and the stationary monitor model 91387; are all similar in that they are all employ the same software and all accept inputs from the family of Spacelabs Parameter Modules. The monitors accept and display parameter information, waveform and numeric data, and alarm conditions including arrhythmia information received from the same family of modules modules.
The portable monitors are capable of operating independent of or connected to the Spacelabs Patient monitoring Network. As independent, portable monitors these devices operate from either AC or battery power. All alarm information received from the parameter modules is visually and audibly available at each monitor. When networked, either physically or wirelessly, these monitors are able to share their information with a central station or with other monitors on the network according to conditions establish by the user/system administrator. They are also able to connect, via the healthcare institution's network, through Dynamic Network Access (DNA) to other applications available on the network.
The stationary monitor, model 91387, can be configured at installation as either a bedside or central station. As an independent bedside monitor the device operates from AC and. presents waveform, numeric data, and alarm conditions, including arrhythmia information, received from parameter modules. When physically networked these monitors are able to share their information with a central station or with other monitors on the network according to conditions establish by the user/system administrator. They are also able to connect, via the healthcare institution's network, through Dynamic Network Access (DNA) to other applications available on the newt6work.
The model 91387 central station monitor provides full monitoring control of remote parameters, including displays and alarms with both visual and audible annunciation for up to 16 patients. All waveform and current numeric data, arrhythmia, ST segment, and trends are available are available at the central station.
The provided text describes the Spacelabs Patient Monitors (models 91367, 91369, 91370, and 91387) and their substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study report with performance metrics in the format usually associated with a medical device's performance evaluation against predefined criteria.
Instead, the document states that the devices were validated through "rigorous testing" to ensure compliance with standards and accurate presentation of parameter data, but it does not quantify this performance or present it in a table of acceptance criteria vs. reported performance.
Therefore, for aspects like "Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance," "Sample sized used for the test set," etc., the information is not present in the provided text.
Here's an analysis based on the information available in the text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
Specific Performance Metrics for accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, etc. | Not provided in the document. The document states "Test programs verified that parameter data provided by parameter modules...to the Patient Monitors could be accurately presented and that the interface supported the intended clinical work flows and met the user's clinical needs." However, no quantifiable performance metrics, thresholds, or pass/fail criteria are given. |
Compliance with relevant standards (unspecified, but mentioned in "Software section") | The device was subject to "rigorous testing that, in part, support the compliance of the software to the Standards mentioned in the Software section of this submission." No specific standards or results against them are detailed. |
Support intended clinical workflows and meet user's clinical needs | "Test programs verified that...the interface supported the intended clinical work flows and met the user's clinical needs." No specific details on how this was verified or what criteria were met. |
Software developed following a robust software development process | "the Spacelabs Patient Monitors' software was developed following a robust software development process that was fully specified and validated." No details about the process or validation. |
2. Sample Sizes Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Sample Size: Not specified. The document mentions "test programs" but does not give the number of cases, patients, or data points used.
- Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications
- Number of Experts: Not specified.
- Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- Adjudication Method: Not specified.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
- Was an MRMC study done? No. The document describes patient monitors that display data from other modules and communicate alarm conditions. It does not involve human readers interpreting data that could be assisted by AI.
- Effect size of human readers with vs. without AI assistance: Not applicable, as no MRMC study or AI assistance is mentioned in this context.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study
- Was a standalone study done? The device itself (the monitor) is not an "algorithm" in the sense of making diagnostic interpretations. It's a display and communication device for physiological parameters. The "rigorous testing" mentioned was for the monitor's ability to accurately present data and interface. This aligns more with functional and system integration testing rather than an AI algorithm's standalone performance. No specific standalone performance metrics for an algorithm are provided.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used
- Type of Ground Truth: Not explicitly stated for specific performance metrics. The phrasing "parameter data provided by parameter modules...could be accurately presented" suggests that the ground truth for "accuracy" would be the direct output from the source parameter modules or a reference standard for those parameters. For clinical workflow, the "ground truth" would be the subjective assessment of meeting user needs.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
- Sample Size: Not applicable. This device is a patient monitor displaying data, not an AI/ML algorithm that is "trained" on a dataset.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
- How Ground Truth Established: Not applicable. This device is a patient monitor displaying data, not an AI/ML algorithm that is "trained" on a dataset.
Summary of Device and Study Information:
This 510(k) submission is for patient monitors that display and communicate physiological data and alarms from other external modules. The "study" described is a general validation of the monitors' ability to accurately present data, support clinical workflows, and comply with unspecified software standards. There are no detailed performance metrics, test set sizes, expert qualifications, or AI-related study components typically found in submissions for AI/ML-driven devices. The focus is on the functional equivalence and safety of the monitors as display and communication interfaces.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1