The Case Against: A New Name for the Field

Abstract

Thirty years ago, while employed at the VA Medical Center in Long Beach, I was called in and told that I would be transferring to a new department called “biomed” the next day. From my first weeks, months, and then years, I developed an understanding and desire for this unique engineering segment and its integral role in delivering medical technology to our patients and clinicians.I am now at the stage of my career where I mentor, teach, and manage a staff which exhibits the same enthusiasm and dedication to the field of biomedical engineering. I have also been privileged to witness the development of our information technology colleagues from the early dot matrix days of automating clinical lab results and patient scheduling to our current paperless realm of the electronic medical record and medical device integration.As our respective groups and affiliated disciplines move forward, we find ourselves at a crossroad where we apparently need to establish a new identity, a new mission, and, most importantly, a new vision. At our 2011 AAMI Conference & Expo, a special session was devoted to discussing the April 2011 Future Forum on a unified name and vision. We were informed that the focus group decided on healthcare technology management (HTM) as the name of the field responsible for “managing the selection, maintenance, and safe and effective use of medical equipment and systems.” A few of us were a little unsettled to be informed that our field was soon to get a new name and vision, and in the opinions of a few audience members, possibly merged. We were assured that we would have the opportunity to comment. I felt a little relieved that I was going to have a small voice in determining our direction.As I left the session and entered the exhibit hall, I spied an isolated booth with a few magazines fanned across the surface. As I focused in on the inaugural edition of Healthcare Technology Management magazine the first thought that came to me was, “How in the heck did they get the ink to dry so fast? We just discussed this concept!”A subsequent Google search later confirmed that my IT counterparts were also in the same identity fix. I found links to healthcare technology alliance, healthcare technology systems, healthcare information technology management. How was I to keep track? I wondered that perhaps both of our groups were scrambling to identify our purpose and value to our healthcare organizations. And most of all I mused, who was going to manage who?Here's my suggestion: Quit the name game. Clinical and biomedical engineering will always be a standard- and evidenced-based driven discipline focusing on managing and maintaining medical devices used for the diagnosis and treatment of our patients. Information systems will always be engaged in the design and delivery of medical informatics in the management of our patients' care and treatment. Don't let the whiteboards fool you; they do a stellar job in running complex networks and workflow processes. We work together more closely now than ever, and we do not need to compete for these namesakes nor dilute or confuse our chosen fields with generic descriptions.Every clinical, electrical, computer science, architectural, and facility engineer is a healthcare technology management professional who applies unique knowledge, skills, and disciplines to the medical environment. Be proud and praise your chosen name. Let's develop a more facilitative and active approach to this dialogue about where we are heading in the evolution of healthcare support and delivery.