American Pharmacy Magazine Article [Sponsored by Intelligent Hospital Systems] Compares i.v.STATION Robot to IHS' RIVA
BOZEN, Sud-Tirol, Italy, May 20, 2013 /PRNewswire/ --
The May 2013 issue of Pharmacy Practice News (Volume 40) features an article sponsored by Intelligent Hospital Systems, and authored by Steve Frandzel with the title of "A Tale of Two IV Robots", comparing both IV Robots' costs, speed, size, features, return on investment, and customer satisfaction and experience.
Gaspar DeViedma, Health Robotics' Executive Vice President and Board Member, stated: "Despite the obvious and understandable deference in content and placement by the author to its paid advertiser [Sales VP from Intelligent Hospital Systems], the article is for the most part well-balanced. It does a fair job depicting i.v.STATION costing one-third of RIVA's price, and also showing that i.v.STATION is much faster (RIVA's customer Primary Children's quotes 22 syringes per hour throughput), and a much smaller footprint than RIVA (9 versus 180 square feet)."
A point of disagreement with Kevin Jones from Primary Children's Medical Center concerns the issue of the syringe queue, where the hospital pharmacy community is at odds with his opinion, as evidenced by the vast majority of RIVA's sales taking place well before i.v.STATION was released to market in America in 2011.
Gaspar DeViedma continued: "While I understand that Kevin Jones started to use RIVA in 2009, well before i.v.STATION existed, the fact of the matter is that, contrary to his opinion, there is no advantage in creating a 450-syringe queue. As the Pharmacy Practice News article points out, at 22 syringes per hour, it takes RIVA more than 22 hours to fill them on a single Robot at his hospital. For far less cost, 3 i.v.STATION Robots can produce up to 120 syringes per hour, or 6 times the throughput of a single RIVA robot, and with significantly less real-state space in the pharmacy. With IV Bags, as the article points out, the i.v.STATION speed advantage over RIVA is even more evident with an i.v.STATION Robot doubling the production of RIVA, all at much less than 1/3 of the cost of the RIVA Robot."
It is indeed ironic that after all of the events within the last six months http://www.health-robotics.com/smartedit/downloads/en/ihswithdrawspr.pdf, it is their own sponsored magazine article that sheds light on "apples to apples" comparisons between the respective companies' Robots. Data shared in the article by two of RIVA's customers and by Intelligent Hospital Systems' Sales VP further confirms prior evidence that RIVA's return on investment jumps to at best 36-month payback while i.v.STATION's has been independently verified as between 6 and 9 months payback, which makes perfect sense given the enormous price difference between the Robots. The article's author also featured interviews with two i.v.STATION customers in order to provide a balanced approach to its readers: http://www.pharmacypracticenews.com//ViewArticle.aspx?ses=ogst&d=Technology&d_id=52&i=ISSUE%3a+May+2013&i_id=957&a_id=23209
About Health Robotics:
Founded in 2006 and now reaching 80% total IV Robots market share in the world [including over 90% the Oncology Robots global market], Health Robotics is the undisputed leading supplier of life-critical intravenous medication robots, providing over 350 hospital installations in 5 continents with the only fully-integrated robotics-based technology, IV Workflow, and manual compounding software automation solutions. Health Robotics' second generation products [i.v.STATION, i.v.SOFT, and i.v.STATION ONCO] have been found [through scientific and peer-reviewed studies[1],[2]] to greatly contribute to ease hospitals' growing pressures to improve patient safety[1], increase throughput, and contain costs[1]. Through the effective and efficient production of sterile, accurate, tamper-evident and ready-to-administer IVs, Health Robotics' medical devices and integrated workflow solutions help hospitals eliminate life-threatening drug[1] and diluent[1] exchange errors, improve drug potency[2], decrease other medical mistakes and sterility risks, work more efficiently[1], reduce waste and controlled substances' diversion, and diminish the gap between rising patient volume/acuity and scarce nursing, and pharmacy staff. For more information, please visit: http://www.health-robotics.com
--------------------------------------------------
1. Impact of Robotic Antineoplastic Preparation on Safety, Workflow, Costs. Seger, Churchill, Keohane, Belisle, Wong, Sylvester, Chesnick, Burdick, Wien, Cotugno, Bates, and Rothschild. Brigham & Women's Hospital, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, and Harvard Medical School. Journal of Oncology Practice, Nov. 2012, Volume 8, number 6.
2. Validation of an automated method for compounding monoclonal antibody patient doses: case studies of Avastin®, Remicade®, and Herceptin®. Peters, Capelle, Arvinte, van de Garde. St. Antonius Hospital. mAbs January 2013, Volume 5, Issue 1.
For additional information, please contact:
Claudia Perez
perez@health-robotics.com
Phone +1-786-417-1251
Share this article