Skip to content
Use case 139

Infusion Pump Gateways

A deployment concept for Infusion pump manufacturers integrating connectivity gateways; Hospital medication technology teams buying pump integration systems; Medical device interoperability vendors deploying fleet-management connectors.

Proposed deployment · Compatibility assessment required
Healthcare and Life Sciences

Why this environment matters

An infusion pump gateway may distribute drug libraries, collect device status and connect a fleet to hospital systems. Its access can affect many devices even though it is not the pump’s therapy controller. This concept narrows fleet-management authority and makes update provenance visible without proposing changes to clinical treatment.

The security challenge

A telemetry component would receive approved status messages without permission to send configuration or library updates. An update component would stage an identified release for the correct device family and obtain the appropriate approval before distribution. Each target’s acknowledgement would be tracked separately; a successful network transfer would not be treated as proof of a completed device update.

How the capsule model could help

NØNOS could host these components in isolated capsules if compatible protocols and vendor-supported integration are available. A constrained adapter would expose only the operations allowed for that task. The pump’s own safety logic and the hospital’s clinical governance would remain authoritative. An interrupted rollout can leave devices on different approved versions. The proposed gateway would report per-device state, including unknown or unconfirmed results, rather than presenting the fleet as uniformly updated. On restart, it would reconcile with the devices before scheduling further work. A realistic pilot would use manufacturer-supported test equipment and synthetic records. It would examine stale acknowledgements, duplicate distribution requests and the separation between read-only monitoring and privileged maintenance. An operating-system restart must not initiate a therapy change or erase the evidence needed to resolve an incomplete maintenance task.

Separate address spaces and capability checks can limit cross-process reach. They cannot stop harmful use of legitimate permissions, prove AI decisions correct or substitute for domain-specific safety controls.

Deployment requirements

Pump compatibility, clinical safety and regulatory clearance have not been established. Manufacturers and clinical engineering teams would need to validate the intended integration. Device firmware, physical safeguards and clinical decisions remain outside the proposed gateway boundary. Evaluation requirements: Submit a library for the wrong device family and verify rejection before distribution. Interrupt a test rollout and confirm that mixed, failed and unconfirmed device states remain visible. Try an update through a monitoring-only account and check that the privileged adapter cannot be reached.

Current public-beta limitations, hardware support and application availability must be assessed before any pilot. Neither this use case nor an industry source establishes NONOS certification or a current customer deployment.

Separate observing a pump from changing its library

A telemetry component would receive approved status messages without permission to send configuration or library updates. An update component would stage an identified release for the correct device family and obtain the appropriate approval before distribution. Each target’s acknowledgement would be tracked separately; a successful network transfer would not be treated as proof of a completed device update.

NØNOS could host these components in isolated capsules if compatible protocols and vendor-supported integration are available. A constrained adapter would expose only the operations allowed for that task. The pump’s own safety logic and the hospital’s clinical governance would remain authoritative.

Make a partially updated fleet understandable

An interrupted rollout can leave devices on different approved versions. The proposed gateway would report per-device state, including unknown or unconfirmed results, rather than presenting the fleet as uniformly updated. On restart, it would reconcile with the devices before scheduling further work.

A realistic pilot would use manufacturer-supported test equipment and synthetic records. It would examine stale acknowledgements, duplicate distribution requests and the separation between read-only monitoring and privileged maintenance. An operating-system restart must not initiate a therapy change or erase the evidence needed to resolve an incomplete maintenance task.

Who could buy or integrate it?

  • Infusion pump manufacturers integrating connectivity gateways
  • Hospital medication technology teams buying pump integration systems
  • Medical device interoperability vendors deploying fleet-management connectors

Industry examples: Baxter, ICU Medical. Organisations shown illustrate the industry. No NONOS customer, partner or endorsement relationship is implied.

Market opportunity

Market benchmarks and device scenarios.

Published industry benchmark
US$6.6 billion

Intravenous infusion pumps

Global · 2025 · annual market estimate

Infusion pump equipment across product types and clinical applications; no gateway-only breakout.

Modelled global devices
250K–5M

Candidate OS endpoints

Hypothetical planning range · 2025

Low confidence: planning assumptions. Hardware compatibility, procurement and adoption have not been validated.

Illustrative annual licensing
$5M–$600M

USD / year at full model coverage

Device scenario × assumed US$20–$120 per device / year.

Not a revenue forecast, announced price or measured serviceable market.

Device calculation

Hypothetical global planning range, 2025 scenario: assume 50,000–200,000 hospitals with centrally integrated infusion fleets × 5–25 candidate OS endpoints per site/asset = 250,000–5,000,000 endpoints. Counting unit: pump-fleet gateways, not individual pumps or infusion channels. Site and asset counts, and devices per site, are planning assumptions. The installed base has not been measured. Coverage is limited to the defined equipped subset; includes all candidate endpoints within that assumed subset. Hardware eligibility, certification, adoption and achievable NØNOS share are unverified; overlaps other cases.

Intravenous Infusion Pumps Market Size, Share Report, 2033 ↗

Market context only; separate from device and site population estimates. Original monetary-market scope and geography are preserved in benchmark. This source does not establish the assumed worldwide site count or endpoint density.

How to interpret the figures

Adjacent or broader commercial market benchmark; not the NØNOS OS market, licensable-device count or revenue forecast.

Modelled candidate endpoints multiplied by an assumed annual USD price per endpoint. Pricing is a planning assumption, not a vendor quote. This illustrates the full scenario range, not revenue or total addressable market. It excludes adoption timing, procurement, certification, support costs, channel economics and achievable market share. Use cases can overlap, so their totals do not represent unique devices.

Research from 2026. Publisher estimates have not been independently audited.

Read the full methodology

Explore NONOS

Choose your
NONOS experience.

Discover the platform for your organisation or explore the software.

You can reopen this chooser from the footer at any time.