3 ms·
That was my first thought too. However, the downside of that solution is that the failure signal relies on correctness of the machine. In the current system, t
by rifung 8y ago
That was my first thought too.
However, the downside of that solution is that the failure signal relies on correctness of the machine. In the current system, the failure signal is guaranteed to occur during failure with a zero false negative rate.
- perlgeek 8y agoMonitoring over the network exists, and should be the preferred way to detect failure. > In the current system, the failure signal is guaranteed to occur during failure with a zero false negative rate. I can easily imagine software bugs that make the machine continue beeping even if the normal function doesn't work anymore. Somehow, this sounds like an excuse for lazy design.
- Nasrudith 8y agoIt sounds like an excuse for not networking at all really. Or upgrading equipment. Just a primitive cables to a data station on a cart outside the room would handle it better on every level than trying to figure out which thing isn't beeping when it should. Have it beep if it loses a signal. Better yet it can handle triaging far better when networked. Signal lost and "patient definetly not breathing" are two very different triage levels for one. You want to restore signal as soon as able but it isn't a mobilize a crash team to resuscitate situation. Nearly everything else has abandoned beeps as the sole indicator with good reason.