KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2025 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
Related Segments
Smart Pumps 2022
Where Are Organizations Investing for the Future? (A Decision Insights Report)
Author
Jackson Tate
Author
Jennifer Hickenlooper
The smart pumps market sees a high number of purchase decisions as old pumps wear out and new functionality becomes available, including bidirectional EMR interoperability, updated pump functionality, and better verification and documentation. To determine where healthcare organizations are investing for the future, this report examines 40 recent or upcoming smart pump purchase decisions validated by KLAS between January 2020 and December 2021. For additional context, satisfaction data from current customers is also included.
ICU Medical and Baxter Often Chosen Due to Strong Technology and Positive Relationships
ICU Medical is highly considered and is the most frequently chosen vendor in this report sample. The vendor is selected by both large and small organizations, who highlight the vendor’s EMR interoperability, broad range of pump types, lack of recent product recalls, and good price point. Organizations also like the pumps’ unique ability to deliver exact infusion rates for secondary infusions regardless of bag height. Frequently citing positive existing relationships, the majority (75%) of current ICU Medical customers looking to replace older pumps decide to stay with the vendor rather than switch to another. Baxter also sees high considerations and selections and is chosen more frequently by smaller organizations (1–200 beds), although KLAS has validated purchases by larger clients. Organizations that select Baxter’s new Spectrum IQ LVP pump say they were persuaded by strong technology, including good ease of use, wireless security, and wireless library updates. Three of the seven interviewed Sigma Spectrum customers making a go-forward decision chose to upgrade to the Spectrum IQ; they cite positive existing relationships and a good experience with the Sigma Spectrum. When Baxter is not chosen—by either current or prospective customers—organizations cite the lack of a full suite of pumps.
Large Organizations Often Turn to ICU Medical and BD for Interoperability and a Broad Solution; Uncertainty about BD Lingers Due to Recalls
ICU Medical (discussed above) and market share leader BD are the vendors most commonly chosen by larger organizations (>200 beds). The majority of organizations in this report sample that chose BD did so before the recent string of Alaris recalls. They often cite BD’s multimodular platform, bidirectional pump/EMR interoperability, and broader pharmacy suite as reasons for selecting the vendor. Several other organizations—including some current customers—removed BD from consideration since shipment of the Alaris pump is currently on hold. BD has submitted a 510(k) premarket notification to the FDA in order to bring the regulatory clearance for the Alaris pump up to date.
Smiths Medical Least Likely to Be Considered by Current Customers
Smiths Medical users looking to update their existing pumps are less likely than other customer bases to consider their current vendor. Functionality development and interoperability experience are perceived to lag that of competitors, motivating customers to choose other vendors that offer better development and multiple pump types (LVP, PCA, and syringe). The two interviewed customers that plan to stick with Smiths Medical cite integration and familiarity with the pump. Two net-new customers report choosing the Smiths Medical CADD-Solis pump for its utilization data and strong functionality for narcotics drips. Smiths Medical was acquired by ICU Medical in January 2022. B. Braun customers that consider the vendor in go-forward decisions are often replacing older B. Braun pumps (Outlook, Outlook ES, or first-generation Infusomat Space). Customers that reselect the vendor as well as net-new customers note that B. Braun offers a full selection of pump types and has not had issues with recalls. A few report that while the pumps are missing some functionality, they trust B. Braun to develop as needed. Six of the nine respondents looking to replace their existing B. Braun pumps chose to go with another vendor. Reasons include price, perceived lack of experience with interoperability, functionality issues with existing pumps, and lagging development. For reasons noted on the previous page, BD also has lower retention rates.
Functionality a Main Driver in Selections/Replacements
When making smart pump purchases, healthcare organizations are looking for up-to-date, easy-to-use technology that enables bidirectional interoperability with the EMR. Despite the Alaris recalls, BD has the largest base of customers (100+) live with EMR/LVP interoperability. ICU Medical has approximately 30–40 LVP customers live, while Baxter has 5–10. B. Braun and Smiths Medical have a few each. Another common driver in purchase decisions is the desire to consolidate to one vendor. B. Braun, BD, and now ICU Medical (through their Smiths Medical acquisition) offer all three pump types. The syringe pump ICU Medical acquired from Smiths Medical will operate on a drug library system that is separate and distinct from that used for ICU Medical’s other pumps. Baxter recently announced efforts to develop a full pump platform that extends beyond an LVP-only approach.
Vendor Summaries
Vendors ordered alphabetically
Overall performance scores and customer experience pillar grades are based on numeric satisfaction ratings from current customers. Customer quotes collected as part of KLAS’ Decision Insights data. See About This Report for more information.
“We chose the vendor since we were already familiar with the Baxter pumps and Baxter wasn’t really changing a lot. That gave us a sense of peace because our staff had worked with the pumps before and there wouldn’t be a learning curve. . . . The nice thing about the Baxter pumps is that the institution puts their own barcode sticker on the pumps that Baxter built from the 2D barcode on the LCD screens. We don’t have the issue of the barcode getting ripped off or worn away.” —Director (current customer who reselected Baxter)
“We looked at the Sigma Spectrum pump. It didn’t have as easy and small of a footprint, . . . and the vendor did not come through with a syringe pump in time like they said they would. We weren’t very excited about having a syringe pump with a different platform than the volume pump. I don’t know what the vendor has done since then, but at the time we were looking, we really wanted something that integrated well together. With the pump that we ended up going with, the syringe and volume pump stack and bolt together.” —Analyst (considered but did not select)
“One of the things that set B. Braun apart was their familiarity with nursing staff. The Infusomat Space was not really that much different from the pump that the nurses were already using. We liked the ease of drug-library creation because we already had a B. Braun platform to start with. B. Braun had some pretty good resources that they had acquired from our EMR vendor, so we had confidence that we would be able to integrate the pump, and that was a big priority. We got new power cords with each pump, and we kept the old cords, which fit the new pumps, so that was good. The design was good, and the pump wasn’t as heavy as other pumps we looked at. We ended up getting a good deal, especially compared to what B. Braun was trying to get us to pay to upgrade the old pump years ago.” —Director (current customer who reselected B. Braun)
“We are moving away from B. Braun. . . . We had the [Outlook ES] for a long time, but the interoperability and integration with our EMR vendor were constant struggles. The pump worked, but we didn’t have great adoption, and we had a lot of connectivity issues. We spent a long time trying to get things working right. One area got things working well, so that area loved the pump, but outside of that, we never got great adoption. That isn’t to say that B. Braun didn’t try, but we got to the point where we just gave up. . . . Doing a comparison of vendors to see where the integration and stability were was high on our list.” —Director (replacing B. Braun)
“Despite the recalls, we anticipate waiting for the vendor to deliver a solution and then upgrading with the Alaris pumps. Since we are interoperable, we aren’t looking at any other vendors.” —Director (current customer planning to reselect BD)
“In the beginning, we looked at the Alaris pumps. We did a vendor fair. Based on staff feedback and input from all of our other stakeholders, we were ready to go with the Alaris pumps, but they were FDA recalled. That totally stopped us in our tracks. We were trying to see whether that issue was going to be resolved, but it wasn’t. Connectivity with the EMR was initially why the nurses really rated the pumps the best because that is something that nurses really gravitate to.” —Director (considered but did not select)
“We are making the switch to the Plum 360 pump. . . . The number-one reason we selected the pumps was that the vendor’s secondary delivery system was a pump system as opposed to a full gravity system. . . . We are huge on interoperability, and ICU Medical had a good amount of hospitals using interoperability. We have done some preliminary work, and we are happy with what we are seeing. ICU Medical is able to fulfill their promises around interoperability. Our nurses like the ease of programmability of the pumps, and setting up the library was the easiest library setup that I have ever done. ICU Medical has a reliable pumping system that is tried and true.” —Director (current customer who reselected ICU Medical)
“ICU Medical was going to stop supporting the pumps model that we were on, and the technology was going to change, so we were going to have to change systems anyway. The vendor’s replacement products were too expensive for us to consider. A lot of our decision had to do with price.” —Director (replacing ICU Medical)
“The decision was fairly easy since the Smiths Medical pump was the only syringe pump ready with integration. We did look at other vendors’ pumps, but many still were not ready for integration. Another factor was our familiarity with the pump. Our staff had been using the Medfusion 3500 for years. The biggest change was adding the interoperability piece.” —Nurse (current customer who reselected Smiths Medical)
“Our time with Smiths Medical has been trying. We have had a lot of software issues and things like that. We were kind of hoping that we would feel better and stay with the vendor because there were some features that the nurses liked. But the platform is still the same, so we weren’t comfortable buying the platform.” —Director (replacing Smiths Medical)
About This Report
Data for this report comes from two sources: (1) KLAS Decision Insights data and (2) KLAS performance data.
KLAS Decision Insights Data
All references in this report to organizations’ purchasing motivations come from KLAS’ Decision Insights data. Since 2017, KLAS has been gathering information as to which vendors are being replaced, considered, and purchased and what factors drive these decisions. KLAS Decision Insights data does not represent a comprehensive census or win/loss market share study. Rather, it is intended to help organizations understand which vendors have market energy and why. The data set in this report comes from 40 organizations that are making or have recently made a smart pumps purchase decision validated by KLAS from January 2020 to December 2021.
KLAS Performance Data
Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT solutions and services their organizations use. For this report, interviews were conducted over the last 12 months using KLAS’ standard quantitative evaluation for healthcare software, which is composed of 16 numeric ratings questions and 4 yes/no questions, all weighted equally. Combined, the ratings for these questions make up the overall performance score, which is measured on a 100-point scale. The questions are organized into six customer experience pillars—culture, loyalty, operations, product, relationship, and value.
Sample Sizes
Unless otherwise noted, sample sizes displayed throughout this report (e.g., n=16) represent the total number of unique customer organizations interviewed for a given vendor or solution. However, it should be noted that to allow for the representation of differing perspectives within any one customer organization, samples may include surveys from different individuals at the same organization. The table below shows the total number of unique organizations interviewed for each vendor or solution as well as the total number of individual respondents.
Some respondents choose not to answer particular questions, meaning the sample size for any given vendor or solution can change from question to question. When the number of unique organization responses for a particular question is less than 15, the score for that question is marked with an asterisk (*) or otherwise designated as “limited data.” If the sample size is less than 6, no score is shown. Note that when a vendor has a low number of reporting sites, the possibility exists for KLAS scores to change significantly as new surveys are collected.
Writer
Elizabeth Pew
Designer
Jessica Bonnett
Project Manager
Robert Ellis
This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2025 KLAS Research, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.