KLAS Reports 100% of i.v.STATION Customers Rate it a “Buy It Again”
Health Robotics is making available its own comments on this undependable and defective KLAS report, particularly given KLAS’ biased methodology and trivial sample size (0.3% of the USA market).
Jan. 11, 2013 - PRLog -- MIAMI -- Health Robotics reported today that while it acknowledges the fact that 100% of i.v.STATION customers rate the product as a “buy it again” on the December 2012 KLAS IV Automation Report with a 80% overall satisfaction score, the company is making available its own comments on this undependable and defective KLAS report, particularly given KLAS’ biased methodology and trivial sample size (0.3% of the USA market) at: http://www.health-
Gaspar DeViedma, Health Robotics’ Executive Vice President and Board Member, stated: “I respect the fact that, arguably, KLAS has a role to play in issuing non-scientific opinion polls, but in our own judgment, there is a huge difference for instance in measuring thousands of CPOE installations with ample sample sizes, versus charging $12,980 for this premature, incomplete, biased, and unreliable IV Automation Report. Provided that KLAS fixes its current flaws with its biased methodology, Health Robotics and its independent User Group might reconsider KLAS’ requests for input on its non-scientific polls. As an example of bias, KLAS lets vendors that choose to pay KLAS for its services edit the reports prior to publication, while it doesn’t permit non-paying vendors to edit the same reports.”
Two months prior to KLAS’ publication last month, and in consultation with Health Robotics’ customers managing its independent User Group, http://www.health-
Mr. DeViedma concluded: “Now that I have seen the KLAS IV Robots report’s underwhelming data, ridiculously low sample size [1 single hospital in the case of 1 vendor under evaluation] and distorted conclusions offered by KLAS, [including KLAS’ own admission that all IV Robots’ data in its KLAS report is statistically insignificant]
Health Robotics believes that its independent User Group Health-System Pharmacists have much greater credibility in front of their peers than KLAS’ biased publications. Health Robotics’ customers and prospective customers may contact the User Group’s Management at anytime at the web link above for their independent and unbiased feedback. KLAS’ report irresponsibly lumps anonymous opinions of vendors’ customers (arguably reliable) with statements from non-customers that might have seen 5 min demos two or three years ago and are no more qualified (nor trained) in having educated opinions than KLAS’ itself.
About Health Robotics:
Founded in 2006 and now reaching well over 80% global market share, Health Robotics is the undisputed leading supplier of life-critical intravenous medication robots, providing over 300 hospital installations in 5 continents with robotics-based technology and fully integrated clinical software automation solutions. Health Robotics’ second generation solutions [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, increase throughput and contain costs. 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 and diluent exchange errors, improve drug potency, decrease other medical mistakes and sterility risks, work more efficiently, reduce waste and controlled substances’ diversion, and diminish the gap between rising patient volume/acuity and scarce medical, nursing, and pharmacy staff. For more information, please visit: http://www.health-
For additional information, please contact:
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.
Page Updated Last on: Jan 11, 2013