Endoscopic retrieval net: Uses, Safety, Operation, and top Manufacturers & Suppliers

Posted on February 27, 2026 | by drjosehph

Table of Contents

Introduction

Endoscopic retrieval net is a single-operator, mechanically actuated accessory used through an endoscope’s working channel to capture and remove foreign bodies, resected tissue, and other material from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and other luminal spaces. In practical terms, it is a small net mounted on a catheter with a handle that allows the net to open, envelop a target, and close for controlled extraction under endoscopic visualization.

For hospitals and clinics, this seemingly simple medical device can have outsized impact on safety, specimen integrity, procedure efficiency, and downstream costs. A well-matched Endoscopic retrieval net can help reduce repeated instrument exchanges, shorten retrieval time, and minimize the risk of losing a specimen or foreign body during withdrawal.

This article provides general, non-medical guidance for clinicians, hospital administrators, biomedical engineers, and procurement teams. You will learn what Endoscopic retrieval net is used for, when it may or may not be appropriate, how to prepare and operate it safely, what “outputs” to interpret in practice, how to respond to common problems, how infection control typically applies, and how the global market and supply ecosystem varies by region.

In many endoscopy units, retrieval nets are viewed as “routine” accessories—something grabbed quickly after a polypectomy or during a foreign-body call. However, the moments when they are used can be critical: the scope is often in a challenging position, the field can be partially obscured, the patient may be under sedation, and the item being retrieved may be medically or legally important (e.g., a specimen required for pathology, or a foreign body that must be fully accounted for). That combination makes standardization and training more valuable than the device’s small size might suggest.

Terminology can also vary. Clinicians may refer to a “retrieval net,” “foreign body net,” “specimen net,” or use colloquial references to certain well-known styles. This article uses the generic term Endoscopic retrieval net to describe the broader device category; exact naming, intended use claims, and compatibility are always product- and jurisdiction-specific.

Finally, because retrieval is a step that touches multiple departments, the “owner” of performance is rarely one person. Endoscopists, nurses/techs, sterile processing (if reprocessing is relevant), pathology, supply chain, and biomedical engineering all influence outcomes—through correct selection, packaging checks, channel protection, labeling discipline, and post-use documentation.

What is Endoscopic retrieval net and why do we use it?

Clear definition and purpose

Endoscopic retrieval net is a disposable or reusable (varies by manufacturer) endoscopic accessory designed to capture and extract objects from inside a body lumen while maintaining endoscopic visualization. It is commonly used as medical equipment during flexible endoscopy to remove:

Retrieved tissue (for example, resected lesions that need to be sent for laboratory handling)
Ingested foreign bodies (as clinically appropriate)
Food material or bezoar fragments (as clinically appropriate)
Dislodged or migrated luminal devices (as clinically appropriate)

Unlike grasping forceps or snares, a retrieval net is intended to envelop rather than pinch. This can reduce slippage for smooth or rounded objects and can help protect specimen edges when intact retrieval matters for downstream handling.

In practical workflow terms, a net is often chosen when the team wants a “capture-and-hold” tool that can conform around a target. That conformability is useful when the object is hard, slick, friable, or irregularly shaped. Compared with some other tools, the net can also reduce the need to repeatedly re-grasp an object as it moves with peristalsis, insufflation changes, or scope torque.

Retrieval net vs. other retrieval tools (conceptual comparison)

While product design varies, many teams think about nets relative to these common alternatives:

Grasping forceps: great for firm, graspable edges; can slip on smooth objects; may crush tissue.
Snares: can lasso a target; useful for certain shapes; may be less effective for small fragments.
Dormia-style baskets (in some settings): can trap objects; may be better for some “stone-like” items; can be harder to deploy in tight angles depending on design.
Cap-assisted retrieval: uses a distal cap for suction/capture; useful in selected cases; requires compatible caps and technique.

A retrieval net is not universally “better,” but it is often more forgiving for a broad range of everyday retrieval tasks—especially when the goal is to retrieve an item intact with fewer traumatic contact points.

Typical components and design variables

While designs differ, most Endoscopic retrieval net products include:

Handle with a slider, thumb ring, or pistol-grip style actuation (varies by manufacturer)
Catheter/sheath sized for a specific working channel diameter and length
Net that opens to a stated diameter and closes by retracting into the sheath

Common variables that matter operationally and for procurement include:

Net opening diameter and depth (basket volume)
Net mesh size and material (varies by manufacturer)
Catheter outer diameter and flexibility
Working length to match gastroscopes vs colonoscopes vs enteroscopes (varies by manufacturer)
Presence/absence of radiopaque elements (varies by manufacturer)
Sterility and single-use labeling (varies by manufacturer)

From a biomedical engineering perspective, compatibility with the endoscope’s working channel and accessory elevator mechanism (for scopes that have one) is a key consideration to avoid friction, channel wear, or incomplete deployment.

Beyond those basics, facilities often discover that “net performance” is the sum of many small design decisions. When evaluating products (especially during conversion, tender changes, or standardization projects), additional variables that can matter include:

Frame material and memory: some designs use spring-like alloys to help the net open reliably and maintain shape; others may be more dependent on the sheath and handle travel.
Net geometry: round vs oval openings, deeper “bag-like” nets vs shallow nets, and whether the rim stays rigid or collapses easily.
Atraumatic distal tip: soft or tapered distal components can reduce snagging when the net is advanced or withdrawn near mucosa.
Mesh construction: monofilament vs braided fibers, knotless vs knotted patterns, and how the mesh is anchored to the frame—all influencing tear resistance and how well tiny fragments are retained.
Closure mechanics: how tightly and symmetrically the net closes, whether it forms a “pouch” vs a “pinch” point, and whether there is a defined closed detent.
Catheter surface: lubricity, coatings, and stiffness profiles can change how easily the device tracks through a looped colon or angulated scope position.
Handle ergonomics: one-handed actuation, “feel” of opening/closing, and the ability for an assistant to control the handle while the operator steers the scope (varies by practice).

Even minor differences can affect user confidence and, in turn, how many attempts it takes to retrieve an object. For procurement teams, that is where a low-cost item can influence procedure time, staff frustration, and inventory consumption.

Common clinical settings

Endoscopic retrieval net is most often associated with GI endoscopy, including:

Outpatient endoscopy centers (high-volume colonoscopy and upper GI procedures)
Hospital endoscopy units (more complex foreign-body retrieval and urgent cases)
Operating rooms (hybrid cases or when anesthesia resources are required)

Depending on local practice and product labeling, retrieval nets may also be used with other scopes and clinical device workflows where a working channel supports accessory passage. Availability and labeling for non-GI uses vary by manufacturer and jurisdiction.

Within GI, the “retrieval moments” are also diverse:

Post-resection retrieval (e.g., after EMR/ESD or polypectomy): the specimen may be floating in fluid, stuck in a fold, or partially obscured by residual debris.
Foreign-body service calls: often urgent, sometimes after-hours, and sometimes involving objects with challenging shapes or surfaces.
Device migration events: where a luminal device (e.g., a small plastic component or a migrated accessory) must be removed or repositioned.

Operationally, that means retrieval nets may be used in both highly planned workflows (scheduled screening lists) and unplanned workflows (emergency ingestion cases), which influences stocking strategy and training needs.

Key benefits in patient care and workflow

For operations leaders and clinical teams, the value proposition is usually about control and predictability:

Controlled capture of slippery objects that are hard to hold with forceps
Reduced specimen loss compared with withdrawing tissue loosely or via repeated instrument exchanges
Potential time savings in retrieval steps, particularly when a net avoids “chasing” a specimen
Improved workflow consistency for standard tasks (for example, routine specimen retrieval after resection)
Lower downstream disruption by reducing the need for repeat procedures due to lost material (context-dependent)

For procurement teams, Endoscopic retrieval net is often treated as a “small-ticket” line item, but it influences throughput, waste management, and staff satisfaction—especially in high-volume endoscopy programs.

Additional, often underappreciated benefits include:

Specimen integrity for pathology: retrieval with less crushing can help preserve architecture for histology, particularly when the specimen is fragile, large, or has key margins.
Reduced “handoff risk”: a specimen secured in a net is less likely to be dropped onto drapes, the floor, or into a sink during transfer—events that can trigger delays, re-labeling confusion, or repeat retrieval attempts.
Predictable device behavior for trainees: a standardized net can be easier to teach than multiple forceps styles, supporting competency pathways.
Simplified inventory for common tasks: many units standardize 1–2 net sizes for most cases and keep additional sizes for special scenarios, improving readiness while limiting SKU sprawl.

When should I use Endoscopic retrieval net (and when should I not)?

Appropriate use cases (general)

Use cases vary by facility protocols and device labeling, but Endoscopic retrieval net is commonly selected when the target is:

Smooth, round, or mobile, making it difficult to grasp reliably with forceps
Fragile tissue where minimizing crushing and preserving orientation matters
Multiple small fragments, where a net can collect more efficiently than repeated forceps passes
A specimen that must be recovered for identification and downstream handling

Operationally, teams often prefer a retrieval net when they want high capture reliability and are able to maintain continuous endoscopic visualization during deployment and withdrawal.

In day-to-day practice, that can translate into common scenarios such as:

Post-polypectomy retrieval in colonoscopy: especially when the specimen is free-floating and hard to trap against the scope tip.
Upper GI retrieval of small ingested items: where “enveloping” is more reliable than trying to pinch a smooth surface.
Collecting multiple pieces after fragmentation of food material (as clinically appropriate) or when a specimen breaks unintentionally during resection and the pieces must still be accounted for.
Retrieving migrated, small components that are not easily snared because they are short, cylindrical, or have no obvious edge to grab.

A practical way to decide is to consider three dimensions:

Target characteristics: size, surface friction (slippery vs grippable), rigidity, and fragility.
Environment: lumen diameter, angulation, visibility, and whether the target is free or embedded.
Withdrawal pathway: whether the object must pass a tight junction, a bend, or another constriction where a net could snag or where the object could slip.

Situations where it may not be suitable

Endoscopic retrieval net may be a poor fit when:

The object is too large to fit into the net or pass safely through the intended withdrawal path
The object has sharp edges or barbs that could tear the net or injure mucosa during capture or withdrawal
The object is embedded in tissue or otherwise not freely mobile
Access is limited by scope position, severe angulation, or anatomic constraints that prevent stable deployment
The endoscope’s working channel is too small or the accessory elevator cannot accommodate the catheter (scope-dependent)
Visibility is poor (for example, heavy debris) and safe, controlled capture cannot be assured

In these situations, alternative tools (forceps, snare, basket, cap-assisted techniques, overtube use, or other methods) may be considered per local practice. Selection is highly case-dependent and should follow facility protocols.

Additional “practical unsuitability” reasons that sometimes show up in incident reviews include:

Very heavy objects: even if the object fits in the net, weight can stress the mesh or make withdrawal unstable, increasing the chance of slippage.
Objects that wedge easily: long or irregular items that can catch on folds, sphincters, or tight turns may require a different capture approach or additional protective accessories.
Extremely small items: if the mesh is too coarse, small fragments can escape during withdrawal; in those cases, a finer mesh or different tool may be preferable (depending on availability and labeling).
High-risk location with limited maneuvering room: in a narrow segment, a fully opened net may obstruct visualization and hinder careful positioning.

A useful procurement implication: facilities may want at least two mesh densities or net geometries available if their case mix routinely includes both tiny fragments and bulkier targets. Standardization is beneficial, but only when it still matches local clinical reality.

Safety cautions and contraindications (general, non-clinical)

Because this is hospital equipment used inside the body, general safety cautions include:

Do not use if sterile packaging is compromised, the device is expired, or labeling is unclear.
Do not force the catheter through the working channel; excessive resistance can damage the scope or the device.
Avoid using a net that does not match the scope’s channel size/length requirements.
Do not use if the net does not open/close smoothly during pre-use functional checks.
Be cautious with high-risk objects (e.g., sharp, heavy, irregular); suitability varies by manufacturer labeling and local protocols.
If reprocessing is contemplated, confirm the device is labeled reusable and follow the manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU). Reprocessing single-use devices is regulated differently across countries and may be prohibited.

Facilities often add local cautions that reflect their incident history and equipment mix, such as:

Allergy/biocompatibility checks: confirm latex status or specific material warnings if your patient population or policy requires it (product labeling varies).
Channel protection: avoid repeated “dry” passes through a channel that already has significant angulation or known friction; friction is a leading contributor to both accessory damage and scope service calls.
One-device-one-patient discipline: even if a device is used only briefly, it is still exposed to bioburden once inserted; reuse within a single day or across patients must follow labeling and policy.

What do I need before starting?

Required setup, environment, and accessories

Before using Endoscopic retrieval net, most facilities ensure the following basics are in place:

A functioning endoscopy system (scope, light source, processor, suction/insufflation as applicable)
Appropriate monitoring and staffing per procedure type and sedation model
A sterile field approach consistent with the facility’s endoscopy policy (even when the scope itself is high-level disinfected rather than sterile)
Waste containers suitable for contaminated sharps/biowaste as applicable

Common supporting accessories (selected per local protocol and case) include:

Overtube or protective sheath (for certain extractions)
Distal attachment cap/hood (varies by practice)
Alternative retrieval tools (forceps, snare, basket) as backups
Specimen cup/jar and labeling materials for downstream handling
Lubricant approved by facility policy (if used; compatibility varies)

In addition, many units prepare for the “last 10% of the job”—specimen or foreign-body handling after the net exits the patient. That preparation can prevent confusion and delays:

A designated landing zone on the cart or Mayo stand where the net can be opened without contaminating labels or paperwork.
Pre-printed labels or an electronic label workflow so the specimen container is ready before retrieval begins.
A “count/confirm” habit for foreign bodies (e.g., confirm number of magnets, batteries, or components expected vs retrieved), recognizing that confirmation methods are governed by clinical judgment and local protocols.
Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff handling potentially contaminated objects, including splash protection when the net is opened.

From an operational perspective, retrieval nets are also affected by endoscope selection: pediatric vs adult scopes, ultra-slim scopes, and therapeutic scopes have different working-channel diameters and may not share the same accessory compatibility. Many facilities build a simple compatibility chart into the room (or electronic preference card) to reduce wrong-size selection.

Training and competency expectations

Even though the device is mechanically simple, safe use is a competency topic:

Operator training should cover device selection, deployment technique, and safe withdrawal.
Staff should understand scope compatibility (channel size, working length) and how to avoid scope damage.
Team training should include emergency escalation pathways and instrument malfunction response.
Facilities commonly use vendor in-services and supervised cases for initial competency; the exact approach varies by organization and jurisdiction.

In higher-volume programs, competency is often reinforced through:

Standard work / preference cards that specify the default net size for each procedure type and scope.
Short skills drills for assistants/techs on handle actuation and “ready-to-retrieve” setup (e.g., keeping the net closed and protected until the operator requests deployment).
Incident-based learning: reviewing near-misses such as specimen drops, net tears, or channel friction events and updating the local checklist accordingly.
Annual refreshers tied to new product conversions, scope fleet upgrades, or changes in infection control policy.

Even experienced operators benefit from periodic recalibration, because “feel” differences between net brands (handle travel, opening stiffness, closure force) can change technique. When hospitals switch vendors, a brief transition period with extra stock of the prior net (where possible) can reduce frustration and device waste during the learning curve.

Pre-use checks and documentation

A practical pre-use checklist for Endoscopic retrieval net typically includes:

Verify correct product and size for the intended scope and target.
Confirm packaging integrity and sterility indicators (if applicable).
Check expiration date and storage condition notes (temperature/humidity limits vary by manufacturer).
Perform a functional check: open and close the net outside the patient to confirm smooth movement and full deployment.
Confirm catheter integrity (no kinks, cracks, or obvious defects).
Record required traceability fields per local policy (lot number/UDI where applicable, product name, size, and number used).

Documentation expectations vary, but procurement and risk teams often benefit when clinical documentation includes the reason for use, any device difficulty, and whether the target was successfully retrieved.

Many facilities add a few additional “micro-checks” because they prevent the most common setup errors:

Start closed: confirm the net is fully closed before insertion to avoid snagging at the working channel entry.
Check working length: ensure the net catheter length matches the scope type (gastroscope vs colonoscope vs enteroscope). A mismatch can lead to partial deployment and wasted time.
Confirm channel patency: if the scope has been heavily used during the case (multiple exchanges, thick debris), some teams flush the channel per local practice to reduce friction before inserting a larger accessory.
UDI workflow readiness: if your facility uses barcode scanning, confirm scanners and software capture the correct item before packaging is discarded.

How do I use it correctly (basic operation)?

Basic step-by-step workflow (general)

The exact technique depends on anatomy, target type, and the manufacturer’s IFU. A typical, general workflow is:

Select the device: Choose an Endoscopic retrieval net compatible with the scope’s channel diameter and working length, and sized for the target.
Prepare the field: Open packaging using aseptic technique consistent with facility policy.
Function check: Actuate the handle to confirm the net opens fully and closes without binding.
Introduce the catheter: Under direct visualization, advance the catheter through the working channel to the target area.
Deploy the net: Extend the net beyond the distal end of the scope and open it fully.
Position for capture: Maneuver the open net to envelop the target, using scope tip control and gentle catheter movements.
Close the net: Retract/close the net slowly to secure the target. Confirm the target is fully inside the net rather than partially snagged.
Stabilize: Maintain visualization and a stable scope position. Avoid excessive torque or fast withdrawal that can dislodge the target.
Withdraw: Remove the net and scope according to local protocol. For some cases, teams withdraw the net into the scope tip or use protective accessories; approaches vary by manufacturer and facility practice.
Recover and handle the target: Transfer to an appropriate container and label per policy.
Inspect the device: Check the net for tears or missing components before disposal or reprocessing (as applicable).
Document: Record success, any issues, and traceability fields.

To add operational clarity, many teams mentally break the workflow into three “risk zones”:

Deployment zone (steps 4–6): risk of mucosal contact, poor visibility, and incomplete opening if the net is not fully beyond the scope tip.
Capture zone (step 7): risk of partial capture, net rim snagging, and closing against the wall rather than around the target.
Withdrawal zone (steps 8–9): risk of slippage, resistance, and injury if an object catches at a narrowing.

The safest technique is usually the one that slows down during those zone transitions, rather than moving quickly because the device seems simple.

Practical operational tips (non-clinical)

Maintain continuous visualization during capture and early withdrawal where feasible.
Avoid “sweeping” the mucosa with an open net; use controlled movements.
If resistance is encountered, stop and reassess rather than applying force.
If multiple fragments are expected, confirm the net’s capacity and plan for repeated passes rather than overfilling.

Additional practical tips that can improve reliability without adding complexity:

Use the scope tip, not the catheter, for most steering: many nets track best when the operator uses scope deflection to “present” the net rather than pushing and pulling the catheter aggressively.
Open only when positioned: deploying the net too early can block the view and make it harder to approach the target.
Center before closing: if the target is near the rim, small movements during closure can push it away rather than capture it.
Plan a “parking spot”: after capture, briefly stabilize your position and reduce scope torque before beginning withdrawal to lower the chance of the object shifting.
Communicate handle movements: in settings where an assistant controls the handle, short cues (“open,” “half,” “close slowly”) reduce abrupt closures that can snag tissue or miss the target.

Typical “settings” and what they generally mean

Endoscopic retrieval net is usually a purely mechanical clinical device, so there are no electronic settings to configure. What teams often call “settings” in day-to-day practice are actually selection and positioning choices, such as:

Net size (opening diameter/volume): larger nets can capture bigger targets but may be harder to maneuver in tight spaces.
Mesh density: finer mesh may hold small fragments better; coarser mesh may reduce resistance (varies by manufacturer).
Handle positions: open, partially open, closed, and any locking feature (varies by manufacturer).
Catheter length: must match the scope used; insufficient length can prevent full deployment.

Always rely on the manufacturer’s IFU for compatibility claims and intended use.

In procurement and training, it can be useful to treat these “settings” as standardized choices with clear defaults. For example:

A default net for routine polyp specimen retrieval (common size, common scope).
A larger-volume net kept available for bulkier fragments (with clear labeling so it is not accidentally selected for ultra-slim scopes).
A fine-mesh option reserved for small fragments when retention is the primary concern.

That kind of “menu design” reduces cognitive load during procedures and decreases waste from opening the wrong size.

How do I keep the patient safe?

Safety practices and monitoring (general)

Patient safety with Endoscopic retrieval net is largely about planning, controlled technique, and monitoring, including:

Confirming the plan for retrieval and withdrawal before deploying the net
Ensuring appropriate monitoring is in place per facility protocol (vitals, oxygenation, and sedation monitoring where applicable)
Maintaining clear communication between operator, assistant, nursing staff, and anesthesia support (if present)

Facilities often treat foreign-body retrieval as a higher-risk workflow than routine specimen retrieval, which may change staffing, protective equipment, and escalation readiness.

Because retrieval often occurs late in a procedure (after diagnostic or therapeutic steps), staff fatigue and time pressure can also influence safety. A simple pause—confirming the intended withdrawal route, the object’s size relative to anatomy, and whether any protective accessory is needed—can reduce hurried decisions.

Risk reduction during deployment and withdrawal

Practical safety principles include:

Match the device to the case: incorrect sizing increases the chance of slippage or mucosal contact.
Avoid excessive force: resistance can indicate size mismatch, entanglement, or anatomic constraint.
Protect vulnerable areas: some teams use protective accessories for withdrawal in certain scenarios; selection varies by protocol and manufacturer guidance.
Control sharp edges: when sharp objects are involved, suitability is highly dependent on local protocol and the specific product’s labeling.
Maintain situational awareness: the net can obscure the field; re-position rather than “blind” closing.

A few additional risk-reduction concepts are commonly included in local standard work:

Think “exit first”: before capture, consider how the object will be withdrawn past narrow points. If the object is likely to catch or rotate unfavorably, plan adjustments early (tool choice, protective accessory, or alternative technique per protocol).
Minimize insufflation during withdrawal (as clinically appropriate and per local practice): an overly distended lumen can change angles and increase contact forces at turns.
Confirm the net is intact after withdrawal: if there is any suspicion of tearing, inspection and reconciliation become a safety step, not just a housekeeping task.
Use gentle, incremental movements: sudden traction is a common cause of losing the object at a bend or sphincter.

Alarm handling and human factors

While the Endoscopic retrieval net itself usually has no alarms, the procedure environment does. Common human-factor failure modes include:

Selecting the wrong catheter length (cannot deploy fully)
Selecting the wrong diameter (excess friction or failure to pass)
Confusing similar-looking products in storage (labeling and bin discipline matter)
Rushing retrieval during time pressure, increasing risk of specimen loss

Best practice is to standardize common sizes, store them clearly, and use a brief “device pause” before insertion to confirm compatibility.

Some facilities incorporate human-factors improvements such as:

Color-coded labels or shelf tags for common working-channel sizes.
Preference-card prompts that list the default net (including channel compatibility).
“Two-person verification” for unusual retrievals (e.g., large foreign bodies) where one team member confirms the selected net size and the planned withdrawal method.
Post-procedure debrief for difficult retrievals to identify whether the challenge was tool choice, technique, visibility, or equipment compatibility.

Emphasize local protocols and manufacturer guidance

Because use scenarios vary widely, facilities should align on:

Approved products and sizes for each scope type
When overtubes/protective accessories are required or recommended
Documentation standards (UDI/lot capture, adverse event reporting)
Escalation criteria for switching tools or stopping a retrieval attempt

In addition, it can be helpful to define what “success” looks like beyond simply “object out.” Many endoscopy quality programs include expectations such as:

Specimen retrieved intact when intended (or documented if fragmentation occurred).
Foreign body retrieved with complete accounting (as appropriate to the case and local protocol).
No unplanned scope damage events (e.g., channel friction requiring service) linked to accessory selection.

How do I interpret the output?

Types of “outputs” in real-world use

Endoscopic retrieval net does not produce numeric readings. The meaningful outputs are observational and procedural:

Visual confirmation that the target is fully within the net
Visual confirmation that the net has closed symmetrically and remains intact
Tactile feedback through the handle (increased resistance can indicate capture, snagging, or overfilling)
Confirmation that the target remains secured during early withdrawal

From an operational standpoint, the “output” also includes traceability documentation (device identifier, count of retrieval attempts, and confirmation of successful recovery).

Many teams also treat time-to-retrieval and number of attempts as practical “outputs,” even if they are not formally recorded. These can become useful internal metrics when comparing products or identifying training needs. For example, a net that consistently requires multiple attempts may be the wrong size, may have a handle mechanism that staff find awkward, or may be poorly matched to the facility’s typical specimen type.

How clinicians typically interpret success (general)

Teams typically consider retrieval successful when:

The intended target is recovered and accounted for
The net remains intact with no evidence of component failure
There is no unplanned complication requiring additional intervention (context-dependent)
The specimen/foreign body is transferred correctly to downstream handling and labeling processes

For specimen retrieval, “success” may also include:

Specimen orientation and integrity: preserved enough for the intended downstream evaluation.
No cross-contamination or labeling errors: the right specimen goes to the right container with the correct patient identifiers.
Clear documentation: the procedure record reflects what was retrieved and how (particularly important when multiple specimens are collected).

Common pitfalls and limitations

False confidence from partial capture: an object can look contained but be caught on the rim and dislodge later.
Field obstruction: the open net can block visibility, particularly in narrow lumens.
Overfilling: cramming too much material into the net increases withdrawal resistance and the risk of loss.
Net damage: sharp edges can tear the mesh; if damage is suspected, device inspection becomes critical.

Other limitations that may show up during use:

Net inversion or folding: in tight spaces, the rim can flip or collapse, making capture harder until the net is repositioned.
“Ballooning” with trapped air or fluid: a fully open net can create drag, especially if it fills with fluid; gradual movements and partial closure can help maintain control.
Reduced precision in angulation: some catheters transmit torque differently than others; in difficult scope positions, the net may lag behind scope movement.

What if something goes wrong?

Troubleshooting checklist (practical)

If Endoscopic retrieval net use becomes difficult, a structured approach helps:

Cannot pass through the channel
Confirm channel diameter compatibility and that no other accessory is present.
Withdraw and inspect for kinks; do not force.
Confirm the scope is not sharply angulated.
Net will not open or opens partially
Check the handle mechanism for full travel.
Confirm the net is fully beyond the distal tip before opening.
Replace the device if movement remains stiff.
Net will not close securely
Ensure the target is centered and not larger than the net capacity.
Avoid closing against the lumen wall.
If closure is incomplete, consider a controlled re-capture attempt.
Target repeatedly slips
Reassess size/mesh choice.
Reduce torque and sudden movements during early withdrawal.
Consider whether a different retrieval tool is more suitable.
Net appears torn or deformed
Stop and retrieve the device carefully.
Confirm no fragments of the device are missing (per local protocol).
Quarantine the product/packaging for potential complaint reporting.

Additional practical troubleshooting scenarios that teams encounter:

Net opens but “won’t stay open”
Confirm the handle is fully in the open position (some handles have a detent).
Reduce external catheter tension; pulling slightly can partially close some designs.
If the frame seems weak or asymmetric, replace the device.
Net cannot be retracted into the sheath
Stop pulling; excessive force can damage the frame or net.
Re-open slightly to release any snag against the lumen wall, then attempt a gentle close.
If the device remains stuck, follow local protocol for controlled withdrawal and tool exchange.
Handle mechanism jams
Keep the scope stable and avoid repeated rapid actuation.
If safe and permitted by protocol, remove and replace the device rather than trying to “work through” a mechanical fault.
Specimen lost during withdrawal
Pause and reassess location and visibility.
Consider whether the specimen may have dropped into a fold or moved proximally/distally with insufflation changes.
Use local protocol for re-identification and retrieval attempts, and document clearly.

When to stop use

Stop and reassess rather than persisting if:

There is unexpected resistance during withdrawal
The patient becomes unstable or monitoring suggests deterioration
The device malfunctions in a way that could increase harm
Visualization is inadequate for controlled capture
The target cannot be secured after reasonable attempts and continuing increases risk

Local escalation policies determine when to switch tools, obtain additional support, or terminate a procedure attempt.

In quality and safety reviews, “reasonable attempts” is often clarified locally (e.g., a defined number of attempts, a time threshold, or a trigger such as repeated slippage). Having that clarity can reduce prolonged attempts that increase mucosal trauma risk or sedation time.

When to escalate to biomedical engineering or the manufacturer

Escalate to biomedical engineering when there is concern about:

Scope working-channel damage or repeated accessory friction issues
Accessory elevator function problems (scope-dependent)
Recurrent device failures across multiple lots or cartons

Escalate to the manufacturer (through the facility’s reporting pathway) when:

A device defect is suspected (net tears, handle failure, incomplete deployment)
Packaging integrity or sterility assurance is questioned
An adverse event or near-miss requires formal product complaint reporting

Keep the device, packaging, and identifiers available when permitted by policy; traceability information is often essential.

Facilities with mature quality systems often add two steps after any significant device problem:

Internal event reporting (risk management) with clear notes on scope model, channel size, and what resistance or failure was observed.
Trend review by materials management or value analysis (e.g., “3 failures in 2 months with lot X”), which can prompt proactive vendor engagement before a broader incident occurs.

Infection control and cleaning of Endoscopic retrieval net

Cleaning principles (and what typically applies)

Infection prevention requirements depend heavily on whether an Endoscopic retrieval net is labeled single-use sterile or reusable. Many retrieval nets are supplied sterile and intended for single use, but this varies by manufacturer and region.

General principles for infection control teams and operations leaders:

Follow the device IFU and local policy as the primary source of truth.
Do not reprocess single-use devices unless permitted by local regulation and governed by an approved, validated process.
Treat used retrieval nets as contaminated clinical device waste and handle accordingly.

Infection control also intersects with workflow design. Even when a net is single-use, contamination can spread through:

Gloves used to handle both the net and non-contaminated surfaces (keyboards, label printers).
Splash or aerosol from opening a fluid-filled net over the cart.
Improper segregation of a net that contains a sharp object into the wrong waste stream.

Clear “dirty-to-clean” boundaries in the procedure room reduce those risks.

Disinfection vs. sterilization (general)

Cleaning removes soil and bioburden; it is a prerequisite for any further reprocessing.
High-level disinfection is commonly used for semi-critical endoscopic equipment that contacts mucous membranes (context-dependent).
Sterilization is required for devices classified as critical (contacting sterile tissue) and for some reusable accessories based on IFU and local policy.

The required level (disinfection vs sterilization) and the validated method (steam, ethylene oxide, low-temperature systems) vary by manufacturer and the facility’s sterile processing capabilities.

For procurement and policy teams, it can be helpful to clarify how retrieval nets are categorized in your facility:

If the net is single-use and sterile, the primary concerns are packaging integrity, storage conditions, and disposal.
If the net is reusable, then validated cleaning steps, inspection criteria, and reprocessing cycle documentation become central—and the true “cost per use” must include labor, equipment, and failure rates.

High-touch points and contamination pathways

Even when the retrieval net itself is disposed of, infection control programs should pay attention to:

Handle transfer and glove changes when moving between accessory preparation and scope manipulation
Work surfaces where sterile packaging is opened
Specimen containers and labeling stations
Transport bins for contaminated accessories

If a retrieval net is reusable (varies by manufacturer), high-risk areas include the net mesh, distal attachment points, catheter lumen interfaces, and handle mechanisms where soil can accumulate.

Many facilities also focus on post-retrieval specimen handling, because it is a common weak point:

Opening the net over an inappropriate surface can contaminate labels or paperwork.
Using the same gloves to label specimens and handle the net can transfer bioburden to containers and racks.
Delays in placing the specimen into a sealed container can increase spill risk during transport.

Example cleaning workflow (non-brand-specific)

This example applies only to devices labeled reusable and only when supported by the IFU:

Point-of-use wipe to remove gross soil while keeping the device moist (per policy).
Transport in a closed, labeled container to reprocessing.
Disassemble only if the IFU allows disassembly.
Manual cleaning using approved detergent, brushing, and flushing steps as specified.
Rinse and inspect under adequate lighting and magnification where applicable.
Apply high-level disinfection or sterilization per the IFU and the facility’s validated cycle.
Dry, package, and store per policy, ensuring traceability and cycle documentation.

For single-use Endoscopic retrieval net, the correct workflow is typically disposal in the appropriate waste stream with documentation and traceability captured as required.

Waste handling and sustainability considerations (operational)

While infection control is the priority, many hospitals also track waste and sustainability impacts. Retrieval nets can contribute to regulated medical waste volume because they are contaminated and often fluid-filled. Some practical, policy-consistent steps that facilities use to reduce unnecessary waste (without compromising safety) include:

Avoid opening multiple nets “just in case” when one is likely sufficient; keep backups unopened until needed.
Standardize sizes so staff do not open a wrong size and discard it unused.
Use clear par levels and timely replenishment to avoid last-minute substitutions that increase waste and retrieval attempts.

Medical Device Companies & OEMs

Manufacturer vs. OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer)

A manufacturer is the legal entity responsible for the finished medical device placed on the market under its name, including regulatory compliance, labeling, post-market surveillance, and complaint handling. An OEM may produce components or even complete products that are then branded and distributed by another company.

In practice, OEM relationships can affect:

Consistency of materials and process controls
Traceability and change management (design or supplier changes)
Availability of technical documentation and training materials
Speed of complaint investigation and corrective actions

For procurement teams, it is reasonable to ask who the legal manufacturer is, what quality certifications are held (e.g., ISO-based quality systems, where applicable), and how post-market issues are handled in your region.

In value analysis, retrieval nets can be an instructive category because the market includes:

Scope-platform manufacturers that offer accessories designed and tested alongside their endoscopes.
Accessory specialists that focus on large catalogs of consumables and offer compatibility across multiple scope brands.
Private-label products where branding and distribution differ from the actual manufacturing entity.

For hospitals, the practical questions to ask (beyond price) often include:

What is the shelf life and what storage conditions are required?
Are there radiopaque markers or other features relevant to your workflow (if applicable)?
Is the IFU clear about working-channel compatibility and any restrictions (e.g., minimum channel size, elevator use)?
How does the vendor handle field safety notices, recalls, and lot traceability?
What is the plan for training during conversion, especially for staff who work across multiple sites?

Top 5 World Best Medical Device Companies / Manufacturers

The following are example industry leaders with broad endoscopy or interventional portfolios. This is not a verified ranking, and specific Endoscopic retrieval net availability varies by manufacturer, region, and product line.

Olympus – Widely recognized for endoscopy platforms and a large ecosystem of compatible accessories. Its global footprint supports many hospital endoscopy departments with training and service models, though local support levels vary. Product availability and accessory ranges differ by market.
Boston Scientific – Known for interventional devices across GI and other specialties, often used in advanced endoscopy settings. The company operates internationally with structured clinical education offerings in many regions. Specific retrieval accessory offerings vary by country and tender arrangements.
Cook Medical – Typically associated with specialty medical devices and procedure-focused accessory lines used in hospitals. Cook products are commonly encountered in endoscopy and minimally invasive workflows, depending on regional distribution. Support models and local inventory depend on the country and distributor network.
Medtronic – A large, diversified medical equipment manufacturer with surgical and GI-focused portfolios in many healthcare systems. Global scale can support standardized procurement and training programs, but the exact accessory catalog differs by region. Endoscopy-adjacent offerings and compatibility details should be confirmed per local listings.
Micro-Tech Endoscopy – Known in many markets for endoscopy accessories and value-oriented product ranges. Distribution is often via regional partners, and support structures can vary accordingly. Facilities should verify regulatory status, compatibility, and local service commitments for each product line.

When evaluating any manufacturer’s retrieval net offering, hospitals often compare:

Range depth (how many net sizes/meshes are available)
Consistency (lot-to-lot uniformity, handle feel, opening symmetry)
Packaging and sterility assurance (clarity of labeling, easy-open features)
Local support (in-service training, rapid replacement in case of defects)
Integration with existing procurement systems (barcodes/UDI, contract availability)

Vendors, Suppliers, and Distributors

Role differences: vendor vs. supplier vs. distributor

In hospital procurement language:

A vendor is any entity that sells goods/services to the hospital (may include manufacturers, distributors, or service providers).
A supplier is the organization that fulfills the order and provides the goods (sometimes a distributor; sometimes the manufacturer directly).
A distributor specializes in warehousing, logistics, local regulatory paperwork, and after-sales support, often representing multiple manufacturers.

Understanding who holds stock locally, who manages returns/complaints, and who provides in-service training is critical for smooth Endoscopic retrieval net availability—especially for urgent endoscopy workflows.

For retrieval nets specifically, supply chain details matter because:

The device is often needed immediately (e.g., urgent foreign-body cases).
A single endoscopy list can consume multiple nets if several specimens are retrieved.
Staff may be reluctant to “try a substitute” if the usual net is backordered, because differences in feel and mesh can impact success.

Facilities sometimes mitigate risk by setting minimum on-hand par levels in each procedure area (endoscopy unit, ER/OR backup) and by clarifying which equivalent products are approved substitutes.

Top 5 World Best Vendors / Suppliers / Distributors

The following are example global distributors (not a verified ranking). Availability and healthcare focus vary by country.

McKesson – A large healthcare supply organization serving many provider networks, primarily in North America. Strengths often include logistics, contract management, and predictable replenishment for routine consumables. Service breadth and product access depend on region and contracting structures.
Cardinal Health – Commonly involved in medical-surgical distribution, inventory programs, and procedural supply support. Hospitals may work with Cardinal Health for standardized ordering and supply chain services. Specific endoscopy accessory availability varies by portfolio and local agreements.
Medline – Often recognized for broad medical-surgical consumables and supply chain services, including private-label categories in some markets. Many hospitals use Medline for bundled purchasing and distribution efficiency. Endoscopy accessory coverage and brand options vary by country.
Henry Schein – Known for distribution across healthcare segments, with a strong presence in practice-based purchasing models and selected hospital segments. Service offerings often include procurement support and logistics; the exact acute-care footprint varies by region. Product selection depends on local subsidiaries and partnerships.
Owens & Minor – Focused on healthcare logistics and distribution services in selected markets. Hospitals may use such distributors for consolidated deliveries and inventory solutions. Regional presence and available endoscopy categories vary and should be validated locally.

From a practical standpoint, endoscopy programs often evaluate distributors on endoscopy-specific capabilities, such as:

Ability to maintain lot-level traceability and support recall workflows.
Availability of clinical support (product training, troubleshooting, conversion support).
Reliability of fill rates and lead times for consumables that are used daily.
Clear returns policy for damaged packaging or suspected defects.

Global Market Snapshot by Country

India

Demand for Endoscopic retrieval net in India is closely tied to expanding GI endoscopy capacity in private hospitals and urban diagnostic centers, with growing activity in public tertiary institutions. Import dependence is common for branded endoscopy accessories, while local distribution networks are strong in major cities. Rural access varies and is often limited by specialist availability and endoscopy suite density.

In procurement, many Indian facilities balance branded accessories with value-oriented alternatives to manage cost per case. Training support from distributors can influence brand loyalty, particularly in fast-growing multi-site hospital groups where standardization is a priority.

China

China’s market is driven by high procedure volumes in large urban hospitals and ongoing investment in hospital equipment modernization. A mix of imported and domestically manufactured endoscopy accessories is common, with strong local production capability in some segments. Service ecosystems are generally mature in tier-1 and tier-2 cities, while smaller facilities may rely on regional distributors and periodic training.

Hospital purchasing can be influenced by centralized procurement initiatives and local tender requirements. As domestic manufacturing capability expands, hospitals may see more options in retrieval nets with competitive pricing, making side-by-side usability evaluation important.

United States

In the United States, Endoscopic retrieval net demand is supported by high-volume screening programs, established ambulatory endoscopy centers, and complex inpatient procedures. Procurement is frequently influenced by group purchasing structures, clinician preference, and strict documentation/traceability expectations. The service ecosystem is robust, with strong vendor support, but product standardization varies across multi-site health systems.

Many U.S. facilities place added emphasis on UDI capture, recall readiness, and consistent packaging/labeling, especially when supplies are shared across multiple procedure rooms and satellite sites.

Indonesia

Indonesia’s demand is concentrated in urban hospitals and private healthcare groups, with developing capacity outside major cities. Import dependence is common for endoscopy accessories, and availability can be affected by geographic logistics across islands. Distributor capability and training support often shape product choice as much as unit price.

Because delivery lead times can be variable, some facilities maintain higher safety stock for frequently used accessories like retrieval nets, particularly where urgent cases are referred to a limited number of centers.

Pakistan

Pakistan’s endoscopy services are strongest in large cities and tertiary hospitals, with variable access in smaller centers. Many facilities rely on imported endoscopy consumables and a network of local suppliers for continuity of stock. Budget sensitivity and tender cycles can lead to mixed-brand inventories, increasing the importance of compatibility checks and standardization.

Where mixed inventories are unavoidable, clear labeling and quick-reference compatibility charts help reduce wrong-size selection and avoid channel friction issues.

Nigeria

In Nigeria, demand is growing in private hospitals and major teaching centers, but access remains uneven across regions. Import dependence is typical, and supply continuity can be affected by customs processes and distributor reach. Training support and reliable availability are major differentiators for procurement teams, especially where staff turnover is high.

Facilities may prioritize vendors who can provide consistent stock and basic clinical training, since device familiarity can materially affect retrieval success in time-sensitive cases.

Brazil

Brazil has a sizable endoscopy market supported by both private and public systems, with strong demand in metropolitan areas. Importation plays a role alongside domestic distribution channels, and procurement can be influenced by public tender requirements. Service and training ecosystems are generally stronger in large cities than in remote regions, affecting accessory standardization.

Large hospital networks may centralize purchasing to standardize accessories across sites, while still requiring flexibility to meet local tender rules and availability constraints.

Bangladesh

Bangladesh’s demand is centered in urban hospitals and rapidly growing private diagnostic networks. Many endoscopy accessories, including Endoscopic retrieval net products, are imported, with variability in brand availability across regions. Cost control and supply continuity are key operational concerns, particularly for high-volume centers.

In high-throughput settings, consistent net performance and packaging reliability (easy-open, clear labeling) can matter as much as price, because small delays compound across a full day list.

Russia

Russia’s market is shaped by large hospital networks in major cities and regional centers, with procurement influenced by regulatory pathways and local distribution capabilities. Import dependence varies by category, and substitution pressures can affect brand continuity. Service support is typically stronger in urban hubs than in remote areas, influencing training and inventory models.

Facilities sometimes hedge against brand discontinuity by qualifying multiple equivalent net sizes and ensuring staff are trained on more than one handle style.

Mexico

Mexico’s demand is driven by both private hospital groups and public institutions, with substantial procedure volumes in urban areas. Imported endoscopy accessories are common, supported by established distributor networks. Access disparities persist between metropolitan regions and rural zones, affecting the consistency of equipment and consumable availability.

Distributor coverage and the ability to support training across multiple sites can influence standardization decisions, especially for hospital groups operating in several states.

Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, endoscopy capacity is expanding but remains concentrated in major cities and selected referral hospitals. Import dependence is typical, and procurement may face long lead times for specialized consumables. Training and maintenance ecosystems are developing, making standardized, easy-to-use accessories attractive when local support is limited.

Programs building new endoscopy capacity may benefit from “starter formularies” that include a small set of reliable net sizes to reduce complexity during early service development.

Japan

Japan has a mature endoscopy environment with strong procedural volume and an emphasis on quality and workflow efficiency. Demand for accessories like Endoscopic retrieval net is supported by established clinical pathways and high expectations for device performance and documentation. Distribution and service networks are generally strong, enabling consistent availability across many regions.

Hospitals may place particular emphasis on consistent opening/closing mechanics and specimen integrity, reflecting the importance of high-quality tissue handling in advanced diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy.

Philippines

The Philippines market is strongest in urban centers where private hospitals and larger public hospitals run active endoscopy services. Import dependence is common, with distributor selection influencing training, pricing, and continuity of supply. Rural access is variable and often constrained by specialist availability and equipment concentration in city-based facilities.

Where clinician coverage is limited, accessories that are intuitive and consistent can reduce the learning curve for rotating staff and trainees.

Egypt

Egypt’s demand is supported by large urban hospitals, teaching institutions, and a substantial private sector presence. Many endoscopy consumables are imported, with purchasing influenced by tender processes and distributor relationships. Service support and inventory stability can differ significantly between major cities and smaller governorates.

Facilities often balance premium brands for complex cases with cost-managed options for routine retrieval tasks, making clear compatibility labeling important.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, access to endoscopy is limited and largely centered in major urban areas and a small number of higher-capability facilities. Import dependence is high, and supply chain constraints can cause inconsistent availability of specialized consumables. Where service ecosystems are thin, procurement often prioritizes straightforward compatibility and reliable delivery.

In such settings, having a small, standardized set of nets that fit the most common scopes can reduce procedural delays when supply variability occurs.

Vietnam

Vietnam’s demand is growing with investment in hospital infrastructure and rising procedure volumes in major cities. Endoscopy accessory supply is typically supported by a mix of imported products and regional distributors. Access and service support outside urban hubs can be less consistent, making training and standardization important for multi-site providers.

Hospitals expanding capacity may evaluate vendors based on both product performance and the ability to support staff onboarding as new endoscopy rooms come online.

Iran

Iran’s market is driven by established tertiary care centers and a broad base of clinical services, with procurement influenced by local regulations and supply constraints. Import dependence varies, and facilities may use a mix of brands based on availability. Service ecosystems are stronger in major cities, while smaller centers may face longer lead times for consumables and support.

As with other markets experiencing supply constraints, hospitals may qualify multiple nets that meet baseline performance needs to maintain continuity.

Turkey

Turkey has a well-developed hospital sector with strong urban endoscopy capacity and active private healthcare networks. The market often includes both imported and locally distributed medical equipment, with competitive tendering influencing price and standardization. Distributor-led training and after-sales support are important, particularly for high-throughput centers.

Private hospital groups may standardize specific net sizes for efficiency and negotiate bundled pricing with distributors supplying multiple endoscopy consumable categories.

Germany

Germany’s demand reflects a mature endoscopy landscape with high expectations for quality management, documentation, and supply continuity. Procurement often emphasizes validated reprocessing pathways (where relevant), traceability, and compliance with local regulatory requirements. Urban and regional access is generally strong, though purchasing decisions may be decentralized across hospital groups.

Facilities may place added scrutiny on IFU clarity (especially for any reusable accessories), packaging integrity, and lot-level documentation processes.

Thailand

Thailand’s market is supported by a mix of public hospitals, private hospital groups, and medical tourism activity in major cities. Imported endoscopy accessories are widely used, and distributor capability influences training and inventory stability. Access outside urban centers can be constrained by workforce and equipment distribution, affecting standardization across regions.

For centers serving international patients, consistent accessory performance and documented quality systems can be important considerations alongside cost.

Key Takeaways and Practical Checklist for Endoscopic retrieval net

Confirm Endoscopic retrieval net compatibility with scope channel and length.
Standardize net sizes on formulary to reduce selection errors.
Verify sterile packaging integrity before opening the medical device.
Check expiry date and storage conditions before use.
Function-test open/close action prior to insertion.
Do not force the catheter through resistance in the channel.
Maintain continuous visualization during deployment and capture.
Avoid sweeping mucosa with an open net.
Select mesh density appropriate for fragment size (varies by manufacturer).
Center the target in the net before closing.
Close slowly to avoid snagging the lumen wall.
Avoid overfilling the net; plan multiple passes if needed.
Use controlled withdrawal; avoid sudden torque and fast pulls.
Stop and reassess if withdrawal resistance increases unexpectedly.
Inspect the net for tears after use and before disposal.
Account for retrieved item versus pre-procedure expectation.
Label specimens immediately to prevent identification errors.
Document lot/UDI where required for traceability.
Keep backup retrieval tools available on the trolley.
Train staff on common failure modes and size mismatches.
Use clear storage bins to prevent look-alike product confusion.
Escalate repeated friction issues to biomedical engineering.
Report suspected device defects through formal complaint pathways.
Follow local protocol for sharp or high-risk object retrieval.
Treat used nets as contaminated hospital equipment waste.
Do not reprocess single-use devices unless permitted and validated.
If reusable, reprocess strictly per manufacturer IFU.
Monitor patient per facility policy throughout the procedure.
Use team communication cues before capture and withdrawal.
Include Endoscopic retrieval net in procedure time-outs when relevant.
Track consumption rates to prevent stockouts in urgent cases.
Evaluate suppliers on continuity, support, and training—not price alone.
Validate regulatory approvals required in your jurisdiction.
Align procurement with endoscopist preferences and standardization goals.
Audit adverse events and near-misses to improve retrieval protocols.
Review contracts for returns, recalls, and field safety notice processes.

Additional checklist items that many facilities find helpful when standardizing retrieval nets:

Confirm the net’s working length matches the specific scope model on the cart (especially in rooms that use both gastroscopes and colonoscopes).
Ensure staff know whether the selected net is single-use vs reusable in your facility’s policy (avoid accidental reprocessing or accidental disposal of a reusable item).
Build a simple compatibility guide for ultra-slim scopes and therapeutic scopes, which often have different accessory limits.
Define who is responsible for specimen handoff (operator vs nurse/tech) to reduce drops and labeling delays.
Consider periodic mock recall drills for lot/UDI capture to confirm traceability is actually working in practice.

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

Best Cosmetic Hospitals, All in One Place