UNSPSC 85314302: Diagnosis of bifascicular block

This classification denotes the group of activities that yields a diagnosis of Bifascicular block. Bifascicular block is listed in the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems or ICD-10 as a four digit category under code I45. 2

UNSPSC 85314302 Diagnosis of bifascicular block is a Commodity code with limited relevance to current state and local procurement activity. The code nominally describes a specific cardiac diagnostic procedure — electrocardiographic detection of dual conduction block in the heart's bundle branches — yet recent solicitations tagged to this code do not align with that clinical scope. San Mateo Medical Center (California) posted an RFP for enterprise-grade Diagnostic Imaging PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System) software implementation with EPIC integration, due August 7, 2026; Collier County (Florida) issued a Notice of Intent to Single Source ultrasound equipment and accessories from EchoNous, Inc.; and Albuquerque Police Department (New Mexico) solicited on-call phlebotomy and blood draw services. While these opportunities involve diagnostic or clinical support work, none directly procures bifascicular block diagnosis. The issuing bodies span a county health system, a county procurement division, and a municipal police department — typical of state and local health and public safety agencies — but the code itself shows little market activity aligned to its stated definition.

Recent procurement under this code occurs across California, Florida, and New Mexico, though the activities are functionally unrelated to bifascicular block diagnosis. The San Mateo Medical Center RFP (due August 7, 2026) represents the most substantive opportunity, seeking PACS implementation for radiology, cardiology, and dental imaging with 99.9% uptime, EPIC integration, and a 9–12 month implementation window; vendor qualifications require demonstrated PACS deployments in public-sector or large health systems with three to five client references. The mismatch between the code's clinical definition and the solicitations actually posted suggests either misclassification by the issuing bodies or a data error in how these opportunities were coded. For business development purposes, this code does not presently signal reliable procurement demand in state and local markets.