The Challenge
A leading academic health system that spans several hospitals, hundreds of outpatient sites, and home care services across the Northeast U.S. was operating two different large-volume smart pump (LVP) systems, LVP A and LVP B. Across facilities, processes differed for pump maintenance, cleaning and distribution, consumable purchasing, education, data analysis, and integration maturity. Although configuration and drug library maintenance were centralized for LVP A, comparable governance did not exist across the full pump fleet.
With Epic go-lives planned across several hospitals, the organization needed to determine whether it should standardize on a single pump, continue supporting multiple pumps, or pursue a broader enterprise strategy for infusion technology governance.
Since real-world pump safety relies on effective smart pump safety program management, the decision required evaluating whether stronger enterprise governance and vendor management could address safety and consistency gaps without a disruptive fleet conversion.
To ensure an unbiased assessment, the health system's leadership engaged an external partner. CTG was selected based on our clinical technology assessment expertise, comprehensive evaluation approach, and previous success providing advisory services to the organization.
The Solution and Results
CTG conducted an enterprise-wide assessment to provide an objective, evidence-based foundation for the health system’s future enterprise infusion technology strategy. Our team evaluated leading smart pumps across clinical, operational, technical, financial, safety, usability, integration, and governance criteria. Over six weeks, we engaged frontline clinicians and operational stakeholders from more than 10 locations through in-person and virtual visits to understand real-world workflows and priorities.
Assessment Results
The assessment consistently supported a strategy centered on optimizing and governing LVP A rather than pursuing an immediate enterprise conversion.
Financial Findings
We analyzed the six-year total cost of ownership and estimated that retaining and expanding LVP A would cost approximately $173 million less than converting to LVP B.
Clinical and Safety Findings
- Clinical feedback from our interviews and observations indicated that LVP A was generally well liked for providing therapeutic treatment to patients. We identified improvement opportunities related to vendor support, pump availability, education, cleaning and distribution, and select specialty workflows.
- Pumps cleared for use in the U.S. must meet applicable regulatory requirements; however, real-world safety performance depends on how effectively an organization manages its smart pump safety program. Our safety analysis confirmed that optimizing a mature pump ecosystem through enterprise governance, vendor management, standardized practices, education, analytics, and continuous monitoring offered a stronger safety posture than an immediate vendor conversion, which could introduce disruption without resolving underlying program-management gaps.
- Our safety and auto-programming performance reviews identified specific opportunities to improve execution: strengthen vendor oversight, optimize EHR build, expand education, and implement continuous monitoring to support safe, consistent infusion practices across the enterprise.
Technology Findings
- LVP A emerged as the strongest smart pump evaluated, supported by broad Epic interoperability, mature drug library and continuous quality improvement capabilities, and alignment with medication safety guidance when fully remediated, governed, and optimized.
- Our market research reinforced the maturity and market adoption of LVP A, including a significant U.S. market share and consistent recognition as a Best in KLAS top performer in both traditional and EHR-integrated smart pump categories.
- Recent industry investment has prioritized software and dose error reduction systems, while pump hardware still requires innovation to address gravity-related performance issues and cassette failures. Organizations should wait until hardware capabilities advance before investing in a fleet conversion.
Taken together, these findings support a three-pronged enterprise strategy: optimize LVP A as the primary enterprise pump, continue LVP B integration for specialty and home infusion workflows, and defer a major fleet conversion until pump hardware and interoperability capabilities mature. This approach enables the organization to improve safety and consistency through stronger governance now while preserving flexibility for future technology investments.
While the recommendation provided a clear technology direction, the assessment also uncovered opportunities to improve governance, safety, clinician experience, and operational consistency across the enterprise.
- Establish a centralized enterprise Medication Safety Smart Pump Program led by a clinical informatics expert to standardize clinical technology, strengthen medication safety, and improve ease of use for frontline staff across the network, while preserving local clinical nuance.
- Prioritize EHR optimization and development opportunities to improve safety.
- Integrate LVP A at specific sites in the short term and create a staged two- to five-year home infusion integration roadmap.
- Continue to mature governance, drug library management, training, analytics, and standardization while monitoring next-generation hardware and preparing for an enterprise RFP when approximately two years remain on the LVP A contract.
Through CTG's comprehensive clinical, operational, technical, safety, market, and financial assessment, the health system gained a clear, evidence-based path forward, one that avoids unnecessary conversion costs, strengthens medication safety through governance and vendor management, and aligns future investments with the availability of more mature infusion hardware.