There has been a lot of discussion recently on the Biomedtalk listserv about the meeting to find a name for biomeds. It prompted various responses and viewpoints, some of which took the conversation in a different direction by raising other subjects that are important but haven’t been broached, such as Rick Hampton’s comment on MDDS: “I’ve not seen anyone post anything about the MDDS Final Rule. I’ve talked with maybe a handful of people who seem to know of it,” he said. “How many of you have heard of MDDS, how many have downloaded and read the Final Rule, and what do you think it means to you, your hospital, or company, and “the profession” in general?
This led to conversations about MDDS and what it might mean. Others suggested it might be better to focus on upcoming challenges for the industry and find solutions for those.
Others stayed on the name track. David Soumis made this excellent comment: “Part of the problem is the fact we are not the same people in every facility. In one org we may do beds, nurse call, TVs. In another, none of those. We’re fragmented, segmented, some of us fall under plant ops, facilities, engineering, maintenance. Some of us actually have our own departments, and some of us are in with IT, IS, or whomever those computer folks are called. It’s no wonder we can’t even come up with a name. We’re not the same. Once the field comes up with who we are, perhaps we can become a name.”
This debate will no doubt continue, but what is important is that the profession exchanged ideas. This opportunity doesn’t exist for everyone where they work, such as those in small hospitals, but through Biomedtalk, this blog, and other avenues, each person can voice an idea and a true discussion can ensue. There’s power in that—to identify problems and also to create solutions.