What is Operating room integration system: Uses, Safety, Operation, and top Manufacturers!

Introduction

An Operating room integration system is a combination of hardware, software, and network infrastructure designed to connect and coordinate the many technologies used in a modern operating room. In practical terms, it brings video, audio, device data, documentation tools, and sometimes room controls into a single, organized workflow—often operated from a touchscreen or control panel.

Hospitals use an Operating room integration system because the OR is one of the most technology-dense environments in healthcare. Multiple video sources (endoscopy, microscopy, C-arm, ultrasound), multiple displays, sterile workflow constraints, time pressure, and multidisciplinary teams create real operational risk if information is hard to access, cables are unmanaged, or documentation is inconsistent. Integration aims to improve how teams access the right images, share information, and capture records—without adding unnecessary complexity.

In many hospitals, “integration” also reflects a shift from isolated devices (each with its own monitor and recorder) toward a coordinated room ecosystem. Instead of treating the endoscopy stack, microscope, imaging cart, and documentation tools as independent islands, an integration platform creates a common way to route images, manage recording, and standardize how each OR behaves from case to case. This can be particularly valuable in facilities with multiple surgeons, rotating staff, or rapid turnover lists where room consistency reduces cognitive load.

It is also useful to understand that “Operating room integration system” is not a single universal product category. Some systems are essentially robust video switchers with recording, while others are closer to a digital OR platform with user authentication, case selection, media management, communications, and optional control of room equipment. The depth of integration often depends as much on project scope and hospital readiness (network, governance, training, service) as it does on the brand of the system.

This article explains what an Operating room integration system is, where it is typically used, and what benefits and limitations to expect. It also covers general safety and human-factors considerations, basic operation, output interpretation, troubleshooting, and high-level infection control practices. Finally, it provides a practical procurement-oriented overview of manufacturers, distribution channels, and a country-by-country market snapshot for global context.

This content is informational and general. Facilities should follow their own clinical governance, cybersecurity, infection prevention policies, and the manufacturer’s Instructions for Use (IFU) and service documentation.

What is Operating room integration system and why do we use it?

Clear definition and purpose

An Operating room integration system is a platform that helps a surgical team manage information and technology in the OR by:

Routing and displaying video from multiple sources to multiple monitors (for example, endoscope camera, surgical microscope, C-arm, ultrasound, or external inputs).
Capturing and managing media such as still images and procedural recordings, often with structured metadata (patient/procedure identifiers as configured by the facility).
Enabling communication within the OR and sometimes to external locations (e.g., teaching rooms or remote consultation), where permitted by policy.
Providing centralized controls for AV switching and, in some installations, room features such as lights, cameras, and other integrated hospital equipment (varies by manufacturer and site design).
Generating logs and audit trails that support quality improvement, troubleshooting, and governance (capabilities vary by manufacturer).

Depending on the configuration, an Operating room integration system may be treated as a medical device, a medical equipment accessory, or an IT/AV system with clinical impact. Regulatory classification and validation expectations vary by country and by intended use.

From a practical engineering viewpoint, most OR integration platforms solve two problems at once:

Signal management: getting the right images from the right devices to the right displays with predictable quality (resolution, aspect ratio, color handling), minimal latency, and stable connectivity. This often includes converting and scaling different video formats and ensuring consistent “handshakes” between sources and displays.
Workflow management: reducing the number of steps required to perform common actions (switching sources, capturing images, starting/stopping recording, labeling and exporting media) while maintaining governance (user permissions, audit logs, patient context, retention and access rules).

A typical system may include several building blocks even if the user experiences it as “one interface,” such as:

A video routing layer (matrix switch, encoders/decoders, or a hybrid)
Source converters/adapters (e.g., converting between common OR video formats)
Recording/capture endpoints (hardware recorder, software recorder, or both)
A control layer (touch panels, wall controllers, footswitch integration, voice control in some designs)
A media management layer (case folders, export queue, storage monitoring)
Network services (time sync, user authentication integration, secure remote service access where approved)

Many hospitals also evaluate how an integration platform will exchange data with enterprise systems. Depending on the vendor and the hospital’s IT environment, this could include patient schedule context, image storage destinations, or identity management. The exact interfaces and standards vary widely, and they must be validated during planning rather than assumed.

Common clinical settings

Operating room integration is most common in environments that rely on multiple video sources and standardized documentation, such as:

Minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopy and thoracoscopy)
Arthroscopy and sports medicine
Urology and gynecology endoscopy
ENT and skull base procedures
Neurosurgery and microscope-driven workflows
Hybrid ORs (combined surgical and imaging workflows)
Teaching hospitals and proctoring-enabled centers
High-throughput ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) with standardized room setups

Additional settings where integration often becomes valuable include:

Cardiothoracic and vascular cases where multiple imaging modalities (fluoroscopy, ultrasound, endoscopy, transesophageal echo displays) may need coordinated viewing
Complex general surgery and bariatrics where reliable recording and consistent routing improve efficiency across long lists
Microsurgical or reconstructive workflows where microscope output, room cameras, and documentation must be coordinated without clutter
Robotic-assisted surgery environments, where teams often balance robot console views, ancillary imaging, and teaching monitors (integration scope varies by facility policy and device interfaces)

Key benefits in patient care and workflow (general)

An Operating room integration system is typically used to support:

Faster access to the correct image on the correct display (less time spent moving cables or chasing the right input).
More consistent room setup through procedure profiles and standard monitor layouts (varies by manufacturer).
Improved team communication by making key images visible to the right people at the right time.
More reliable documentation workflows for still capture and recording when aligned with policy, consent processes, and data governance.
Reduced clutter and improved ergonomics when combined with booms and structured cable management (an engineering and design outcome, not a guarantee).
Training and education support (e.g., in-room displays, lecture capture, internal streaming), where permitted and governed.

In operational terms, hospitals often pursue integration to reduce friction that is easy to underestimate but costly over time—small delays from incorrect inputs, missing adapters, uncertain recording status, or inconsistent labeling. When implemented well, integration can also help:

Reduce variability between ORs, so staff can float across rooms without relearning monitor mappings each time.
Lower the risk of “lost media” by centralizing storage destinations and making transfer failures visible.
Support quality improvement by generating consistent logs and making it easier to review what happened during technical incidents (for example, when a recording failed or a source dropped).
Improve equipment longevity by decreasing repeated physical reconnection of fragile connectors and reducing ad-hoc cable strain (benefit depends on design and behavior).

It is equally important to recognize limitations: integration can add complexity, requires robust support from biomedical engineering and IT, and introduces cybersecurity and privacy risks that must be managed throughout the system’s lifecycle. In addition, benefits depend heavily on configuration discipline—a poorly labeled, poorly governed integration platform can create confusion faster than a simple direct connection.

When should I use Operating room integration system (and when should I not)?

Appropriate use cases

An Operating room integration system is generally most suitable when one or more of the following are true:

The OR uses multiple video sources that need frequent switching or simultaneous display.
The team needs reliable still capture/recording workflows with standardized labeling and storage pathways.
There is a requirement for standardized room operation across multiple ORs (e.g., consistent monitor behavior and routing).
The facility runs hybrid OR workflows where imaging and surgery must share displays and coordination.
Leadership is pursuing operational consistency, measurable workflow improvements, and better governance of intraoperative media.
The hospital has (or is willing to build) the support infrastructure: network readiness, cybersecurity controls, trained super-users, and on-call service coverage.

Additional practical triggers for considering integration include:

New OR builds or major renovations, where it is easier to design cable paths, rack locations, and mounting solutions cleanly from the start.
Expansion across sites or campuses, where leadership wants common room behavior, consistent training, and shared support procedures.
High teaching or proctoring demand, where controlled sharing of images (with governance) is part of the core mission.
Frequent equipment changes, where a defined integration layer can reduce disruption when individual sources (camera heads, imaging carts, ultrasound) are upgraded.

Many facilities benefit from a phased approach: start with routing and display consistency, then add media capture, then add communications or room control after governance and training are stable. Phasing reduces project risk and makes it easier to validate each workflow before adding more dependencies.

Situations where it may not be suitable

An Operating room integration system may be a poor fit—or may require a deliberately limited scope—when:

Case mix is low-complexity with minimal need for video routing or recording.
The facility lacks reliable power/network infrastructure, or has limited IT/biomedical engineering support.
Budget constraints do not allow for lifecycle costs (service contracts, software updates, cybersecurity, and replacement planning).
The clinical device ecosystem is highly mixed and interoperability is uncertain (compatibility varies by manufacturer and by connected equipment).
Governance for recording, consent, retention, and access control is not mature (risk of privacy incidents).

Other common “watch-outs” include:

Legacy sources with unstable outputs (or unusual formats) that require many converters, increasing points of failure.
High staff turnover without structured onboarding, where inconsistent training leads to workarounds and misrouting.
Unclear ownership between departments (IT vs biomed vs perioperative services), which can delay incident response and updates.

In some settings, a simpler approach—such as a dedicated endoscopy tower recorder or a single high-quality video switcher—may provide most of the benefit with less complexity. Not every OR needs the same level of integration, even within one hospital.

Safety cautions and contraindications (general, non-clinical)

While contraindications are typically defined for patient-facing clinical devices, an Operating room integration system still has important safety boundaries:

Do not treat the integration platform as a substitute for primary clinical monitoring; critical patient monitoring should remain on validated devices and displays per facility policy.
Do not connect or control other medical equipment in unapproved ways; only use manufacturer-supported interfaces and validated configurations.
Avoid “workarounds” such as undocumented adapters, unmanaged switches, or unapproved software, which can introduce electrical, cybersecurity, and reliability risks.
If the system supports recording/streaming, ensure governance for privacy, access control, and consent is followed; requirements vary by jurisdiction and facility policy.

It is also wise to set clear expectations about what integration can and cannot guarantee. For example, integration can provide a convenient place to view images, but it does not eliminate the need for a human verification step (correct source, correct patient context, recording status confirmed) before relying on an output for a critical moment.

What do I need before starting?

Required setup, environment, and accessories

An Operating room integration system is a system-of-systems. Typical prerequisites include:

Physical infrastructure: wall or boom-mounted displays, control touchscreens/panels, equipment racks (if used), cable management, and appropriate mounting compliant with local safety standards.
Power resilience: appropriate power distribution and, where required, uninterruptible power supply (UPS) for core components (facility-dependent).
Network readiness: segmented network design, secure addressing, time synchronization, and bandwidth planning appropriate for video transport (requirements vary by manufacturer and configuration).
Connected device compatibility: video formats, connectors, and supported control/data protocols for connected hospital equipment (varies by manufacturer).
Documentation pathways: defined storage locations and retention policies for images/videos, including whether integration to PACS, VNA, EHR, or secure archives is needed (interfaces vary by manufacturer).

Common accessories may include sterile covers for touch interfaces, footswitches for capture, microphones for audio capture, and dedicated endpoints for recording or streaming. Exact accessories vary by manufacturer and OR design.

In addition to the items above, most successful projects define several “hidden but critical” prerequisites early:

A source/destination map (“integration matrix”) listing every video source (camera control unit, microscope, C‑arm, ultrasound, room camera, laptop input) and every destination (surgeon monitor, assistant monitor, wall display, recorders, teaching output). This prevents scope gaps and last-minute cabling surprises.
A naming convention for inputs and outputs that will appear on screen (e.g., “Lap Cam,” “C‑arm,” “Scope 1”) and a governance process for changing names when devices move.
Defined ownership and escalation (who answers a “no signal” call in the middle of a list—biomed, IT, vendor, or a trained super-user).
Planned storage capacity and retention that reflect actual volume. Long lists and 4K recordings can consume storage quickly, and failed transfers often appear only when storage reaches a threshold.
Environmental planning for racks and endpoints: adequate ventilation, dust control, and physical security for ports and removable media.
Interoperability validation for each connected device: supported resolutions, color spaces, and connector types, plus any control interfaces (serial, network, or device-specific).

In retrofits (upgrading existing rooms), it is especially important to evaluate existing monitors, booms, conduits, and cable paths. “Works on paper” may fail in practice if the room lacks space for racks, if cable routes are too tight for new fiber/copper bundles, or if older displays do not support the needed resolutions.

Training and competency expectations

Because the system sits in a high-risk workflow, competency matters:

Identify “super-users” for nursing, surgery, and anesthesia (role-based).
Provide hands-on training for common workflows: routing, capture, exporting, downtime procedures, and privacy practices.
Ensure biomedical engineering and IT have service-level training for logs, backups, cybersecurity updates, and interface monitoring (depth varies by manufacturer and contract).
Use short, procedure-specific quick guides to reduce cognitive load during cases.

Many facilities also benefit from:

Simulation-based practice (in an empty room or skills lab) to rehearse switching, capture, and downtime before go-live.
Competency sign-off for the roles most likely to operate the system (often circulating nurses), especially when recording/streaming is used.
A refresh plan after software upgrades or workflow changes, since “small UI changes” can cause real confusion during live cases.
Clear role definitions: who is allowed to change templates, who can start a stream, who can export media, and who can edit metadata.

Training should include not just “how to use features,” but also how to detect failure early (e.g., storage almost full, wrong patient context, loss of a critical source) and what immediate fallback steps are expected.

Pre-use checks and documentation

Facilities typically standardize pre-use checks such as:

Confirm the system powers on normally and no fault indicators are present.
Verify correct date/time and user login behavior (important for audit trails and media labeling).
Confirm core video sources display correctly on intended monitors.
Perform a short test of still capture/recording and confirm storage destination is available.
Confirm privacy and access controls: correct patient context (where applicable), session clearing, and auto-lock behavior.
Document issues and escalate early to biomedical engineering to prevent “known faults” from becoming intraoperative failures.

Additional high-value checks (especially in rooms that record frequently) can include:

Confirm audio inputs (if audio recording is used) and check for obvious echo or a muted microphone.
Verify available storage headroom and that any transfer queue is not stuck from the previous day.
Check that the “external input” port (often used for a laptop or ultrasound cart) is working, since these are frequently used and frequently misconfigured.
Ensure sterile covers and barriers are available and compatible with touchscreens and controls that might be used near the field.
Confirm that a direct-connection fallback (if part of the room design) is present and functional—knowing where the cable is and how to switch to it is part of readiness.

Good pre-use checks are short and consistent. The goal is to detect predictable failures (no signal, wrong time, storage full) before the patient is in the room, not to create a complicated checklist that no one completes.

How do I use it correctly (basic operation)?

The exact user interface and terminology vary by manufacturer, but a practical “basic operation” workflow is usually consistent across platforms.

Basic step-by-step workflow

Start of day / room readiness – Power on required components in the correct sequence (varies by manufacturer and local policy). – Confirm network connectivity indicators and that the system is in an operational state. – Check that displays are set to expected inputs and brightness levels for the room. – If the room uses profiles, confirm the “default” profile matches the day’s expected case mix (for example, endoscopy-heavy vs microscope-heavy days).
Log in and select the intended workflow – Log in using role-based credentials (avoid shared accounts where policy prohibits them). – Select a room or procedure profile if the system supports templates (e.g., default monitor layouts and preferred sources). – If the platform supports patient context selection (manual entry or schedule-driven), confirm the correct case and verify identifiers according to facility policy before capturing or exporting any media.
Connect and verify video sources – Confirm each source is connected and recognized (endoscopy camera, microscope, imaging, ultrasound). – Verify correct orientation and labeling; mislabeling is a common human-factors error. – Ensure the “critical view” is available on at least one display without complex switching. – Where possible, validate that the source is outputting the expected resolution and aspect ratio (mismatch can lead to stretched images or clipped overlays).
Route video to displays – Assign sources to specific monitors (surgeon, assistant, nurse, wall display). – Use multi-view or picture-in-picture only when it improves situational awareness; avoid cluttering the view. – Consider establishing a “no surprises” rule: if the surgeon’s primary display will change sources, announce it or confirm verbally during high-risk moments.
Set up capture/recording (if used) – Confirm recording is permitted for the case and configured per policy (consent and governance are facility-dependent). – Verify patient/procedure metadata entry method (manual entry vs scheduled-list integration; varies by manufacturer). – Run a short test recording and confirm storage space and destination availability. – Confirm what exactly will be recorded (which source, with or without audio, full-screen vs multi-view) so the result matches documentation needs.
Intraoperative operation – Switch sources deliberately and announce changes when helpful for team coordination. – Capture stills/segments per the clinical team’s workflow and documentation policy. – Avoid making nonessential configuration changes mid-procedure unless trained and authorized. – If the system provides annotation, bookmarking, or event marking (feature-dependent), use these consistently to make post-case review and retrieval easier.
End of case – Stop recordings and verify file finalization (some failures occur at the “stop/save” step). – Confirm export/transfer status if the workflow requires PACS/VNA/EHR transfer (interfaces vary by manufacturer). – Clear patient identifiers from shared displays and log out. – If the platform supports a “case close” function, use it to trigger automated export rules and to prevent the next case from inheriting the previous case’s context.
Between cases – Reset to default room state and apply cleaning/disinfection steps for high-touch points. – Report any faults immediately to reduce repeat failures. – If a workaround was used (for example, direct-connecting a source to a monitor), document it so the room is restored to standard configuration after the list.

Setup, calibration, and typical settings (general)

Some common settings you may encounter include:

Video resolution and format (e.g., HD vs 4K, color space): selection depends on source equipment and monitor capability.
Latency and scaling controls: important when mixing sources; excessive scaling can reduce clarity.
Recording profiles: file format, bitrate, audio enable/disable, and storage destination; these are often configurable by administrators.
User permissions: role-based access to prevent accidental changes to network, routing, or recording settings.
Time synchronization: critical for audit trails; may rely on network time services (facility-dependent).

Calibration steps (if applicable) may include monitor color/brightness calibration, camera white balance, and verification of image orientation. Whether these are required, automated, or manual varies by manufacturer and connected medical equipment.

In practice, “calibration” for integration is often less about clinical calibration and more about signal consistency:

Display identification and EDID management: ensuring sources consistently “see” the correct display capabilities so they output stable resolutions. Mismanaged EDID is a frequent reason for intermittent “no signal” events.
Aspect ratio and overscan settings: preventing important image edges or device overlays from being cut off.
Color handling consistency across monitors: especially when one monitor is used by the surgeon and another by assistants or teaching observers. Even small differences in brightness and contrast can affect perceived detail.
Audio level checks when audio is recorded or used for conferencing, including ensuring that audio capture aligns with policy (some facilities prohibit capturing staff conversations).

If the room includes both direct wired paths and integrated routing paths, the team should know which path is “default” and how to switch in a controlled way without unplugging critical devices mid-case.

How do I keep the patient safe?

Patient safety with an Operating room integration system is mostly about reliability, human factors, and governance. The platform influences what clinicians see, what gets recorded, and how quickly teams can respond to changing conditions.

Safety practices and monitoring

Maintain primary monitoring independence: vital signs monitoring and clinical alarms should remain on their validated devices and displays per facility standards. Integration displays should not be the sole source of critical patient information unless explicitly designed, validated, and approved for that purpose.
Design for “fail-safe” behavior: ensure the team can continue the case safely if the integration platform fails (manual switching, direct connections, standalone displays).
Standardize room layouts: consistent monitor mapping and source naming reduce wrong-source errors under stress.
Use checklists: short pre-incision checks for “correct source on correct display,” recording status (if used), and communication readiness.

A mature safety approach treats integration as part of the OR’s overall risk management program:

Downtime drills (even brief ones) help staff practice what to do if the touch panel freezes, the recorder fails, or a key input disappears.
Defined minimum safe configuration clarifies what must be available to proceed (for example, at least one working endoscopic view on a primary monitor) versus what is “nice to have” (secondary displays, recording, streaming).
Change control discipline reduces unintended consequences. Even small changes—renaming an input, updating firmware, adding a new converter—can alter behavior across multiple rooms.

If integration is used for documentation, safety also includes ensuring the correct patient context is used and that recorded media is managed according to policy. A wrong-patient recording is not only a privacy issue; it can also undermine clinical documentation integrity.

Alarm handling and human factors

An Operating room integration system may generate system alerts (loss of input, storage full, network disconnect). These are different from clinical alarms:

Assign responsibility for responding to system alerts (often circulating nurse or a designated operator).
Ensure alert tones and on-screen messages are visible/audible in the OR environment without becoming a distraction.
Manage alarm fatigue by tuning what can be tuned (within manufacturer limits) and by training staff to interpret priorities.

Common human-factors risks include:

Wrong patient selected for recording/labeling.
Wrong source routed to the surgeon’s display at a critical moment.
Overuse of multi-view layouts causing clutter and missed cues.
“Silent failure” of recording or transfer when storage is full or network is down.

To reduce these risks, facilities often use simple human-factors controls:

Two-step verification before recording starts (confirm patient + confirm source).
Standard color/icon cues for “recording active,” “stream active,” and “no signal,” so staff can recognize status at a glance.
Locked templates for most users, allowing only trained administrators to edit core room profiles.
Clear verbal communication when switching sources, especially during time-critical steps (for example, moving from endoscopic view to fluoroscopy).

Electrical, mechanical, and environmental safety (general)

Use only approved mounting solutions and cable routes; booms, displays, and control panels are heavy and can create mechanical hazards if improperly installed or maintained.
Keep ventilation paths clear for racks, encoders, and displays; overheating can cause shutdowns.
Report any damage to cables, connectors, or housings; do not tape or “patch” safety-critical connections without biomedical engineering approval.

Depending on local standards and facility policy, preventive maintenance may also include verifying:

Secure fastening and mechanical integrity of arms and mounts
Cable strain relief and connector wear (particularly on frequently moved booms)
Basic electrical safety checks appropriate to the equipment class
Safe positioning that avoids pinch points and collision risks during boom movement

Cybersecurity and privacy as safety issues

OR integration increasingly depends on network connectivity, which introduces safety-adjacent cyber risk:

Implement role-based access, strong authentication, and session timeouts per policy.
Maintain patching and update processes aligned with manufacturer guidance and the facility’s change-control process.
Use network segmentation and monitoring appropriate for connected medical equipment (approach varies by hospital IT governance).
Control remote access for support with documented approval, logging, and time-limited access when possible.

Privacy practices should include screen privacy awareness, controlled export workflows, and clear policies for teaching/streaming.

In addition, many facilities treat the following as “baseline hardening” steps for integration platforms:

Disable or control unused ports (for example, USB ports on recording stations) to reduce malware and data exfiltration risk.
Use encrypted storage and secure transfer mechanisms where supported, especially when exporting media outside the immediate OR environment.
Centralize identity management (where feasible) so access can be revoked promptly when staff rotate or leave.
Monitor audit logs periodically for unusual access patterns (after-hours logins, repeated failed logins, exports outside normal workflow).
Maintain backups and recovery plans for configuration and templates so rooms can be restored after hardware failure or cyber incidents.

A cybersecurity incident can become a patient safety event if it disrupts visualization or documentation at the wrong time. For that reason, integration platforms should be included in the facility’s broader incident response planning and downtime procedures.

Follow facility protocols and manufacturer guidance

Safe use ultimately depends on:

Manufacturer IFU and service guidance
Facility policies for recording, data retention, and access control
Biomedical engineering preventive maintenance
IT security controls and incident response processes

Facilities that formalize acceptance criteria during commissioning (for example, “all sources route to all displays,” “recordings finalize reliably,” “exports complete within defined time,” “downtime path verified”) often have fewer surprises after go-live.

How do I interpret the output?

An Operating room integration system produces multiple “outputs,” and interpretation depends on what the system is configured to handle.

Types of outputs/readings

Common outputs include:

Live video feeds routed to one or more displays.
Multi-view layouts (two or more sources displayed simultaneously).
Still images and video recordings with timestamps and user-entered metadata (fields vary by manufacturer and facility configuration).
System status indicators such as input detected/not detected, recording active, storage capacity, and network connectivity.
Audit logs showing user actions, configuration changes, and event histories (depth varies by manufacturer).
Communication status (call connected, stream active) where communication modules exist.

Some systems also support limited device data overlays (e.g., a source label or device-provided information), but the scope and reliability of overlays vary by manufacturer and connected clinical device interfaces.

In addition to the visible outputs, many platforms produce “behind the scenes” outputs that matter for support teams:

Event logs that show when inputs were lost or re-detected
Transfer queues that show export status and failures
Storage health indicators (disk health warnings, low capacity alerts)
Network health indicators (link up/down, time sync status)

These support outputs are not always visible to clinical users, but they are essential for troubleshooting and preventive maintenance.

How clinicians typically interpret them (general)

Live video outputs are interpreted primarily for visualization and team coordination—confirming the operative view and making sure the right imaging is displayed to the right team members.
Recordings and stills are interpreted as documentation artifacts and educational material, subject to governance and quality requirements.
Status indicators are interpreted operationally: “Is the system ready?”, “Is the recording actually happening?”, “Did the transfer complete?”

Clinicians also tend to interpret integration behavior as a proxy for readiness: if switching is slow, if the touch panel lags, or if “no signal” appears intermittently, teams often adapt by simplifying their workflow. That adaptation can be sensible, but it may also hide underlying faults; recurring slow performance should be escalated rather than normalized.

Common pitfalls and limitations

“Displayed” does not always mean “recorded”: teams should confirm recording status indicators and finalization at case end.
Latency and compression artifacts can occur, especially in networked video workflows; do not assume video timing is identical across all displays.
Metadata errors (wrong patient, wrong date/time) can reduce usefulness and create governance risk.
Overlays are not universally validated measurements: unless explicitly specified by the manufacturer, avoid treating on-screen overlays as metrology-grade data.

Additional interpretation challenges include:

Multi-view confusion: a multi-view screen can be useful, but it can also lead to misidentifying which window is “live” or which source is being recorded.
Icon overload: some systems display multiple small indicators (recording, streaming, network, storage). Staff should be trained on which indicators are safety-critical versus informational.
Export assumptions: “export started” is not the same as “export completed.” If media must be available for immediate post-op review, confirm completion rather than assuming it will finish later.

What if something goes wrong?

A well-run OR treats integration failures like any other equipment incident: stabilize the immediate workflow, switch to a safe fallback, and then troubleshoot systematically.

Troubleshooting checklist (practical and general)

Protect the procedure first: if critical visualization is affected, switch to a direct connection or standalone display if available.
Check power and basics: confirm the affected monitor/source is powered, brightness is appropriate, and the correct input is selected.
Confirm routing: verify the selected source is routed to the intended display; misrouting is common during rapid switching.
Validate the source: test whether the source device is outputting video (connect directly if feasible and safe).
Check recording prerequisites: storage capacity, correct destination, network availability, and user permissions.
Look for clear error messages: note exact wording/codes, time of occurrence, and what changed immediately before the issue.
Use approved reboot sequence: if a restart is required, follow the facility’s policy and manufacturer guidance; rebooting the wrong component can extend downtime.

It can also help to recognize a few recurring failure patterns:

Black screen / “no signal”: often a disconnected cable, wrong input selected, a handshake/format mismatch, or a powered-off source.
Image present but wrong aspect ratio or clipped: scaling/overscan settings, resolution mismatch, or a converter issue.
Intermittent dropouts: loose connectors, stressed cables on moving booms, overheating endpoints, or unstable power/network links.
Recording starts but fails to save: storage full, permissions, destination unreachable, or file finalization error.
Export stuck: network path issue, destination server issue, credential/authorization changes, or queue corruption.

A practical approach is to isolate the problem layer-by-layer: source device, cable/connector, integration router, display, recording/export destination. This avoids chasing symptoms across multiple devices at once.

When to stop use

Stop using the integration features (and revert to manual/standalone workflows) if:

The system prevents reliable visualization of essential images.
There are signs of electrical hazard (smell, smoke, damaged cables, liquid ingress).
The interface becomes unpredictable or unresponsive during critical moments.
A privacy/security concern is suspected (unexpected remote connection, unknown user session, abnormal behavior).

It may also be appropriate to stop recording/streaming (even if routing is working) if patient context cannot be verified, if the correct destination cannot be confirmed, or if the platform behaves inconsistently when starting/stopping capture.

When to escalate to biomedical engineering or the manufacturer

Escalate when:

Problems persist across cases or rooms, suggesting a systemic fault.
There are recurring recording failures, transfer failures, or storage corruption.
Software updates, configuration changes, or new connected equipment correlate with failures.
Cybersecurity incidents are suspected or logs indicate unauthorized access.
Any issue may represent a reportable safety event under local policy.

Document the incident clearly: room, time, configuration, connected devices, symptoms, and steps already taken.

For faster resolution, it can be helpful to capture:

A photo of the screen showing the error or status indicators (if policy allows)
The exact time the failure occurred (to correlate with logs)
Which source and destination were involved
Whether the issue happened after a specific action (profile change, source switch, start/stop recording)

Consistent incident notes help engineering teams trend issues (for example, “dropouts always happen when Boom A is moved,” suggesting cable strain) rather than treating each event as isolated.

Infection control and cleaning of Operating room integration system

An Operating room integration system includes multiple high-touch surfaces and shared interfaces. Cleaning is not only an infection prevention concern; it also affects reliability (touchscreen performance, connector integrity) and longevity of the hospital equipment.

Cleaning principles

Follow the manufacturer’s IFU for each component (touchscreens, monitors, control panels, cameras, microphones). Chemical compatibility varies by manufacturer.
Prefer wiping over spraying to reduce liquid ingress into seams, vents, and connectors.
Use facility-approved disinfectants and respect required contact times.
Treat shared touch interfaces as high-touch points and clean between cases per local policy.

Because integration equipment often contains vents, seams, and sensitive coatings, facilities typically emphasize:

Using minimal moisture needed to achieve disinfection
Avoiding abrasive materials that can scratch anti-glare coatings
Not allowing liquids to pool at the bottom edge of touchscreens or along bezel seams
Ensuring equipment is safe to touch and operate after drying (residual wetness can cause unresponsive touch behavior)

Disinfection vs. sterilization (general)

Most integration components (touchscreens, wall displays, racks) are not designed for sterilization.
Cleaning typically focuses on low- to intermediate-level disinfection for environmental surfaces, aligned with facility policy.
If any accessory enters the sterile field (for example, a covered control surface or a camera handle), sterile barriers or sterile-compatible accessories should be used as specified by the manufacturer (varies by manufacturer).

It is also important to distinguish between items that are near the sterile field (handled with clean gloves but not sterile) versus items that are within the sterile field. Integration systems usually aim to keep controls outside the sterile field, but some rooms rely on sterile covers so the team can touch controls without breaking sterility. Barrier use should be standardized so staff do not improvise with non-approved materials.

High-touch points to prioritize

Touchscreen/control panel surfaces and bezels
Keyboards, mice, and control knobs (if present)
Monitor frames and frequently adjusted joints/handles
Boom handles and equipment arm touch points
Footswitches used for capture or control
Microphones, headsets, and communication buttons
Door-side controls if integrated with room communication

Other frequently missed touch points can include:

Cable grips and strain reliefs on booms (often touched during repositioning)
Drawer pulls or rack handles in rooms where staff access ports
“Laptop input” connection points (often used by vendors, reps, or imaging staff)

Example cleaning workflow (non-brand-specific)

Before the case: inspect for visible soil or damage; confirm appropriate covers/barriers are available; ensure the interface is responsive after cleaning.
Between cases: wipe high-touch points with approved disinfectant wipes; replace any disposable covers; avoid saturating seams; allow surfaces to dry per contact time.
End of day (terminal clean): clean less frequently touched surfaces (rear of monitors, boom joints where accessible, rack doors/handles); check vents for dust buildup; document any damage or wear for biomedical engineering follow-up.

If cleaning agents cause clouding, discoloration, or touchscreen malfunction, stop and escalate—this often indicates incompatibility with the material or coating.

A practical tip for long-term reliability is to align cleaning routines with equipment design: if a rack is located in a sub-sterile area, the exterior may be cleaned routinely while interior dust management and filter checks become part of scheduled maintenance rather than ad-hoc cleaning.

Medical Device Companies & OEMs

Manufacturer vs. OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer)

In capital medical equipment, the “manufacturer” is typically the company that markets the final product, provides regulatory documentation, and carries primary responsibility for safety and post-market support. An OEM may manufacture subcomponents (such as video encoders, displays, cameras, control panels, or computing modules) that are then integrated into the branded system.

For an Operating room integration system, OEM relationships can influence:

Parts availability and lead times
Software and cybersecurity update pathways
Long-term serviceability (especially for proprietary vs. commodity components)
Interface compatibility with third-party medical device ecosystems
Warranty boundaries and escalation routes

Procurement teams should ask who owns each layer: the AV transport, the recording software, the user interface, and the service obligations.

Because integration is a “stack,” lifecycle risk can come from any layer. For example:

A standard computer module may have a shorter lifecycle than the OR’s physical infrastructure.
A third-party encoder model may be discontinued, forcing redesign of parts of the room.
A software feature (like an export interface) may depend on a separate licensed module that has its own renewal and update cycle.

Strong procurement planning includes clarifying how the manufacturer handles obsolescence, how long security updates are provided, and what happens when a component reaches end-of-support. These details matter as much as initial features in a system intended to last many years.

Top 5 World Best Medical Device Companies / Manufacturers

The following are example industry leaders (not a ranked list and not a verified “best” claim). Specific Operating room integration system offerings and regional availability vary by manufacturer.

Stryker
Stryker is widely recognized for surgical technologies and hospital equipment across multiple specialties. In many markets it is associated with integrated OR solutions alongside visualization and workflow tools. Global presence and established service structures are often part of procurement considerations. Product scope and integration depth vary by country and contract.
In practice, buyers often evaluate how well an integration platform aligns with existing visualization ecosystems, how templates support common procedures, and how service models address uptime needs in high-throughput environments.
Getinge
Getinge is known for operating room, ICU, and sterile processing portfolios, which can align naturally with OR integration projects at the facility level. Many hospitals engage Getinge for broader OR modernization efforts where integration is one component. Support models and system architecture vary by manufacturer and region. Buyers typically evaluate how integration aligns with other room infrastructure.
Facilities planning new OR builds sometimes consider how integration fits with broader room engineering—booms, tables, lights, and workflow standardization—because integration outcomes depend on the whole room design.
KARL STORZ
KARL STORZ is strongly associated with endoscopy and OR visualization ecosystems, where integration can be closely tied to camera and scope workflows. In many hospitals, integration is considered alongside video routing, recording, and image management. Global distribution is significant, but local service capability depends on the country and channel. Compatibility with third-party devices should be confirmed during planning.
When endoscopy is central to the case mix, buyers commonly focus on image quality consistency, reliable capture/recording, and the ability to handle multiple simultaneous sources without confusing the sterile workflow.
Olympus
Olympus is a major player in endoscopy and related surgical visualization categories, and in some markets supports integrated OR workflows. Hospitals may encounter Olympus integration options particularly where endoscopic imaging is central. Availability, feature sets, and interoperability depend on product line and geography. Procurement should validate interface support and long-term software maintenance expectations.
A frequent procurement question is how integration supports governance for media, including metadata quality, user authentication, and controlled export pathways that align with facility policy.
Dräger
Dräger is well known for anesthesia and critical care equipment, and in some environments participates in OR technology ecosystems that intersect with integration projects. Facilities may evaluate Dräger in the context of OR infrastructure planning and interoperability with anesthesia workflows. The extent of integration capability varies by manufacturer and regional offering. Service and uptime expectations should be defined contractually.
For facilities that want “whole-room” coordination, it can be relevant to understand how integration interacts with anesthesia-side workflows without creating new distractions or dependencies.

Many hospitals also encounter other well-established players and specialized companies in the OR integration space, including firms known primarily for displays, video routing, or surgical navigation. Even when these companies are not the “prime manufacturer” on a project, they may appear as OEM subcomponents or as partners in a joint solution. The practical takeaway is that system performance depends on the entire ecosystem, not just the logo on the touchscreen.

Vendors, Suppliers, and Distributors

Role differences: vendor vs. supplier vs. distributor

A vendor is any organization that sells products or services to the hospital; this may include manufacturers, resellers, or system integrators.
A supplier provides goods (or sometimes services) that may be upstream in the supply chain, including components used in installation and maintenance.
A distributor typically holds authorization to sell and deliver products from specific manufacturers, sometimes including local installation coordination and first-line support.

For an Operating room integration system, buyers often purchase through manufacturer direct sales, authorized distributors, or specialized integration partners. Clarify who is responsible for commissioning, training, cybersecurity updates, and ongoing service.

In many projects, a system integrator (sometimes separate from the manufacturer) plays a major role. Integration work may include:

Producing drawings and a final “as-built” documentation package
Coordinating with boom vendors, construction teams, and IT network teams
Managing acceptance testing (routing tests, recording/export tests, failover checks)
Providing go-live support and first-line troubleshooting

Hospitals benefit when the contract clearly states who is accountable for end-to-end function, especially in mixed-vendor rooms where one party might otherwise blame another for interface problems.

Top 5 World Best Vendors / Suppliers / Distributors

The following are example global distributors (not a ranked list and not a verified “best” claim). Their relevance to Operating room integration system procurement varies by region and by whether they carry capital equipment or provide integration services.

McKesson
McKesson is a large healthcare supply chain organization, particularly prominent in North America. Hospitals may engage such firms for broad procurement and logistics, though capital integration projects often remain manufacturer-led. Buyers should confirm whether the distributor is authorized for specific medical equipment categories. Service coverage for complex OR systems may require manufacturer involvement.
For complex integrations, procurement teams often separate “logistics and contracting” from “technical delivery,” ensuring the technical acceptance obligations are clearly assigned.
Cardinal Health
Cardinal Health is another major healthcare distributor with broad product categories and hospital buyer relationships. For OR modernization, organizations like this may support procurement processes, contracting, and logistics. The depth of technical integration support varies by contract and geography. Hospitals should verify escalation paths for service and parts.
In practice, buyers may rely on the distributor for procurement efficiency while still requiring manufacturer-certified engineers for commissioning and software support.
Medline Industries
Medline is widely known for medical supplies and hospital consumables, and in some markets supports broader hospital procurement programs. While Operating room integration system projects are often specialized, large distributors may still be involved in bundled sourcing and delivery coordination. Confirm scope: distribution-only vs. installation/service coordination. Ensure clear accountability for commissioning and training.
Hospitals sometimes use large distributors to streamline purchasing while contracting specialized partners for the technical integration and validation work.
Henry Schein
Henry Schein operates as a distributor across healthcare segments in multiple regions. Depending on country and business unit, hospitals may encounter Henry Schein in procurement workflows for medical equipment and related services. For complex OR integration, confirm authorization status, technical capacity, and manufacturer-backed support. Buyer profiles and offerings differ significantly by geography.
For buyers, the key is to identify whether the distributor is acting as a reseller only or as a coordinator of installation and service—a difference that strongly affects risk.
DKSH
DKSH is known for market expansion and distribution services across parts of Asia and other regions. In some countries, organizations like DKSH act as local channels for international manufacturers, helping with importation, regulatory support, and service coordination. Capabilities vary by country team and manufacturer relationship. Hospitals should validate technical staffing, spare parts strategy, and post-installation service commitments.
In emerging markets especially, local distribution partners can be decisive for uptime if they maintain trained engineers and a realistic spare-parts inventory.

Global Market Snapshot by Country

India

Demand for an Operating room integration system is typically concentrated in large private hospital networks, academic centers, and premium surgical programs in major cities. Procurement often emphasizes interoperability with mixed-brand hospital equipment and the availability of local service engineers. Import dependence is common for advanced integration platforms, while installation and support ecosystems vary widely between metro and non-metro regions.
In practice, many projects are implemented in phases—starting with key ORs that support minimally invasive and high-revenue specialties—before expanding to additional rooms as training and support maturity improve.

China

China’s market is shaped by large tertiary hospitals, ongoing modernization, and strong interest in digital OR capabilities in major urban centers. Buyers may evaluate domestic and international options, and local service presence can be a deciding factor for uptime. Access outside top-tier cities can be uneven, with integration projects often clustered where capital budgets and technical support are strongest.
Procurement can also be influenced by the hospital’s ability to standardize across sites and by expectations around local support for software maintenance and cybersecurity updates.

United States

The United States remains a mature environment for OR integration, driven by high surgical volumes, teaching needs, documentation requirements, and strong expectations for cybersecurity and privacy governance. Hospitals often require structured service contracts, lifecycle management, and clear integration with enterprise IT systems. Adoption is broad, but purchasing decisions are typically rigorous and influenced by standardization across health systems.
Integration projects frequently involve multidisciplinary committees (perioperative leadership, IT, biomed, compliance) and detailed acceptance testing to ensure the solution fits clinical workflows and information security requirements.

Indonesia

In Indonesia, demand is largely centered in private hospitals and leading public centers in major cities, where minimally invasive surgery and teaching programs are expanding. Import dependence for high-end integration is common, and service capability can vary by island and region. Facilities often prioritize reliability, training, and a practical downtime plan due to infrastructure variability.
Hospitals may also consider local spare-parts availability and the ability to support remote sites, since travel time can significantly affect response during faults.

Pakistan

Pakistan’s adoption tends to be concentrated in higher-end private hospitals and major urban tertiary centers. Import dependence is significant, and sustained performance often hinges on spare parts availability and the strength of local distributor support. Outside large cities, constraints in infrastructure and technical staffing can limit complex OR integration projects.
Where integration is adopted, buyers often favor solutions that can operate with limited complexity and that have clear, locally supported maintenance pathways.

Nigeria

Nigeria’s market is typically driven by private hospitals and a smaller number of high-capability public or mission facilities in major urban areas. Import dependence is high, and buyers frequently weigh total cost of ownership, power resilience, and service responsiveness. Access in rural areas remains limited, and integration projects often require strong on-site training to sustain use.
Facilities may place particular emphasis on UPS capacity, surge protection, and a straightforward fallback plan to handle power and network instability.

Brazil

Brazil shows interest in integrated OR workflows in large private hospital groups and advanced public centers, particularly in major metropolitan areas. Procurement often balances feature requirements with service networks and the ability to support mixed-brand environments. Regional disparities in access and service capability can influence where integration projects are feasible and sustainable.
Hospitals that operate across multiple states may prioritize vendors with broad service coverage and clear lifecycle support to manage equipment across geographically dispersed sites.

Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, adoption is commonly concentrated in leading private hospitals and urban tertiary centers, where surgical modernization and documentation needs are increasing. Import dependence is common, and successful deployment often depends on training and reliable local technical support. Outside major cities, infrastructure and service constraints may limit broader rollout.
Procurement teams often look for practical implementations that deliver immediate workflow benefits without requiring extensive new infrastructure.

Russia

Russia’s market is influenced by large regional centers and major city hospitals, where modernization programs may include integrated OR capabilities. Import pathways, service logistics, and long-term parts availability can be significant decision factors. Adoption can be uneven, with advanced installations typically concentrated in higher-resource institutions.
Long-term maintainability and guaranteed access to replacements and updates can weigh heavily in purchasing decisions, especially for systems expected to remain in use for many years.

Mexico

In Mexico, demand is often driven by private hospital networks and top public institutions in major cities, with growing interest in standardized OR workflows. Import dependence for advanced platforms is common, and procurement teams frequently evaluate local support, training, and interoperability with existing equipment. Access outside urban centers can be limited by budget and technical staffing.
Phased rollouts are common, with flagship facilities adopting full integration and satellite facilities adopting more limited routing/capture solutions.

Ethiopia

Ethiopia’s market for OR integration remains emerging, with adoption most likely in flagship hospitals, international partnership projects, and select private facilities. Import dependence is high, and sustainability depends heavily on training, spare parts planning, and infrastructure readiness. Urban-rural gaps are substantial, so deployments are typically targeted to tertiary centers.
Where integration is introduced, project success often depends on building local technical capacity and choosing configurations that remain maintainable under constrained service conditions.

Japan

Japan’s environment includes technologically advanced hospitals with strong expectations for reliability, image quality, and disciplined workflow standardization. Procurement may prioritize integration that fits established clinical processes and facility engineering requirements. Service ecosystems are generally strong in urban areas, while procurement decisions can be conservative and evidence-driven.
Hospitals often place emphasis on predictable performance, structured maintenance, and careful validation of changes to avoid disrupting established OR operations.

Philippines

In the Philippines, integration projects are commonly concentrated in large private hospitals and leading public centers in Metro Manila and other major cities. Import dependence is typical for advanced systems, and service strength varies by region. Facilities often focus on practical usability, training, and clear support escalation pathways.
Because staffing models can vary between institutions, buyers may prioritize intuitive user interfaces and strong local training programs to ensure consistent adoption.

Egypt

Egypt’s demand is centered in major urban hospitals, with private sector investment and modernization of selected public institutions supporting advanced OR projects. Import dependence is common, and buyers often prioritize service coverage and predictable maintenance. Outside large cities, variable infrastructure and technical staffing can limit adoption.
Procurement teams frequently look for solutions that provide strong value in standardized routing and documentation while keeping operational complexity manageable.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

The market in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is generally constrained by infrastructure, funding, and service availability, making comprehensive integration projects less common. Where adoption occurs, it is likely to be in flagship urban facilities or donor-supported programs. Import dependence is high, and long-term sustainability requires careful planning for training and spare parts.
Deployments that succeed tend to focus on essential functionality, robust physical installation, and a realistic plan for maintaining equipment over time.

Vietnam

Vietnam shows growing interest in OR modernization, particularly in major urban hospitals and private providers expanding minimally invasive surgery capabilities. Import dependence for integration platforms is common, but local technical capacity is developing. Procurement often emphasizes training, interoperability, and phased implementation to match operational readiness.
Hospitals may also evaluate how well integration supports teaching and standardized documentation as surgical volumes and specialization increase.

Iran

Iran’s adoption is influenced by large academic and tertiary hospitals, with procurement shaped by availability, service logistics, and long-term support considerations. Import dependence may be significant depending on product category and supply pathways. Facilities typically prioritize reliability and maintainability, especially where access to updates or parts can be challenging.
In such environments, buyers often focus on systems with clear service procedures and configurations that remain functional even with limited external connectivity.

Turkey

Turkey’s market includes advanced private hospital groups and large public/academic centers, with interest in standardized OR workflows and teaching support. Import dependence exists, but local distributor and service ecosystems are comparatively developed in major cities. Procurement frequently weighs interoperability, uptime commitments, and lifecycle costs.
Competition among providers can encourage investment in modern OR capabilities, while larger hospital groups may prioritize standardization across facilities.

Germany

Germany is a mature European market where OR integration aligns with high standards for engineering, documentation practices, and hospital IT governance. Buyers commonly emphasize interoperability, cybersecurity practices, and structured service models, particularly under complex regulatory and compliance expectations. Adoption is strong in larger hospitals, with smaller facilities often selecting narrower-scope solutions.
Procurement processes often include detailed technical specification, formal acceptance testing, and careful coordination between clinical teams and hospital engineering/IT departments.

Thailand

Thailand’s demand is concentrated in major urban hospitals, private providers, and centers supporting medical tourism and advanced surgical services. Import dependence is common for premium integration platforms, and service coverage is strongest in Bangkok and large regional hubs. Facilities often prioritize ease of use, training, and reliable support to maintain throughput.
Hospitals serving international patients may also emphasize consistent documentation workflows and strong audiovisual quality for teaching and case review.

Key Takeaways and Practical Checklist for Operating room integration system

Define the primary goal: routing, recording, communication, or full room control.
Confirm whether the Operating room integration system is treated as a medical device locally.
Map every video source and destination before procurement and installation.
Standardize naming conventions for inputs to reduce wrong-source errors.
Require a documented downtime workflow with standalone display fallbacks.
Validate compatibility with existing endoscopy, microscopy, and imaging equipment.
Plan network segmentation and cybersecurity controls with hospital IT early.
Use role-based user accounts and avoid shared logins where policy prohibits them.
Ensure time synchronization is reliable for audit trails and media labeling.
Implement procedure profiles only after front-line workflow validation.
Train super-users in each discipline (nursing, surgery, anesthesia, biomed, IT).
Run a daily pre-use functional check for routing and recording readiness.
Treat “recording active” as a status to verify, not an assumption.
Confirm storage capacity and transfer destinations before high-volume lists.
Align recording and streaming features with consent and privacy governance.
Keep critical patient monitoring on validated primary devices and displays.
Configure alerts so system faults are visible without causing distraction.
Document and trend recurring faults to guide preventive maintenance.
Avoid unapproved adapters, unmanaged switches, or undocumented workarounds.
Specify commissioning tests and acceptance criteria in the purchase contract.
Demand clarity on software update responsibilities and change-control steps.
Include cybersecurity patching expectations in service agreements.
Ensure spare parts strategy covers expected lifecycle and obsolescence risks.
Verify who supports each layer: AV transport, servers, endpoints, software.
Prefer consistent monitor layouts across rooms to reduce cognitive load.
Limit mid-case configuration changes to trained and authorized users.
Escalate persistent faults to biomedical engineering with clear incident notes.
Capture screenshots or error codes to speed manufacturer troubleshooting.
Clean high-touch control surfaces between cases using approved disinfectants.
Avoid spraying liquids directly onto touchscreens, seams, or connectors.
Use sterile covers or barriers when controls must be accessed near the field.
Confirm mechanical safety of booms and mounts during routine inspections.
Ensure racks and endpoints have adequate ventilation to prevent overheating.
Audit access logs periodically if the platform supports logging.
Control remote support sessions with approval, logging, and time limits.
Test transfer workflows (PACS/VNA/EHR) during commissioning, not after go-live.
Build a simple “room reset” routine to clear patient data after each case.
Include integration training in onboarding for new OR staff.
Review total cost of ownership, not just purchase price.
Reassess workflows annually as new clinical devices are added or replaced.

Additional practical procurement and go-live considerations that often prevent future headaches:

Require an “as-built” document set (source/destination map, IP addressing plan, rack diagrams, and configuration backups) as a deliverable.
Confirm how the system behaves during partial failures (one display down, one source down) and whether the UI makes these states obvious.
Decide in advance how portable devices (vendor laptops, visiting ultrasound carts) will connect without introducing unsafe adapters or unmanaged switches.
Clarify media governance: who can export, where exports are permitted, and how removable media (if allowed) is controlled and audited.
Schedule a post-go-live review (30–90 days) to adjust templates, labels, and training based on real use rather than assumptions.

If you are looking for contributions and suggestion for this content please drop an email to contact@surgeryplanet.com