Has anyone’s trust used the pentagon healthcare medical equipment optimisation service? The health authority in which I work has recently had them over to do a presentation. During this presentation they mentioned that they have four UK NHS trusts are using there product. But they didn’t say which ones.

I would like to hear people’s views about the process that was carried out to optimise the amount of medical equipment and the results that the trust have seen by since completing this process.

I look forward to hearing your views

Are you sure you've got the name right there, Andy (I've never heard of these people)?

It's not a name that I would chosen, by the way. After all, it hardly conjures up a notion of open ("transparency") and unbiased attitudes, does it (to my mind at least)? Perhaps theirs is a five-pronged attack ... er, approach?

And, what is the "optimisation" of medical equipment all about? If it means what I guess it means, that is going through the inventory and identifying any surpluses (or, more likely, old, unreliable or redundant equipment ripe for the cull), why does any Trust or Health Authority need to bring in external people in order to do that?

Is the idea to make (further) savings ... or what?

I wonder do they also recommend adding to the inventory as well? And, if so, which suppliers and/or manufacturers do they favour?

For what it's worth, what I would advocate is a review of the equipment inventory, set against current "norms" in terms of quantities and distribution (placement ... where the kit is). Recommendations should be made where deficiencies are apparent. And then an inspection of all the kit to ascertain its condition, thereby identifying what needs to be repaired or scrapped. Simplification, rationalization, good equipment husbandry. Is that what these people are talking about?

A well established outfit!

Eddie

Andy, there is enough information and guidance here on Huw.com (jesting sir). Why would any BME dept in Britain require a medical equipment optimisation service? If they did then there would surely be something seriously amiss with their current setup???

Eddie

Ah yes (since 2007 at least).

"There is no joined-up thinking where equipment is concerned. The whole thing needs a damn good shake-up".

"First-hand evidence shows that Equipment Libraries are actually part of the problem".

"If you were to ask in an Executive Team Meeting:- Who is responsible for equipment?, either everyone would put up their hand, or no-one would."

Seems like these people know their stuff!

So, the name of the game (that is, the solution) is Managed Equipment Service! I wish them well.

To be fair, Eddie, the Pentagon site looks like a bunch of good stuff to me (but, yet again, not much more than what well-organized people have been doing for years, anyway). Of course, what it doesn't mention (as far as I can see) is how much it all costs! If that were known, I'm wondering if the monies involved would not be better spent on the biomed department!

But, I strongly agree with the notion (and always have) that the equipment inventory should be known, and well managed. The condition of equipment should always be known too. Why should it not be? There should be no "surprises"!


... so "Finance" and Senior Management etc. can say they have followed "best practice", and "left no stone unturned" in their fiscal prudence, that they are in total charge of what's going on, and have even brought in outside consultants to prove it ... blah, blah, blah. Just look at these nice graphs and pie-charts (never mind the tax-payer). I would be much more impressed if the Board were to resign en masse when such embarrassing data becomes clear for all to see and admire!

And lastly, why doesn't NHS High Command provide such a service as this, anyway? What else does MHRA et al actually do?

Which trusts guys!

Eddie

If you thought that was good, check out their savings calc! It seems to make quite a lot of assumptions.

Looking over the site, I'd imaging it was used by trusts that were looking to cut back on equipment and just need any excuse.

As for which trusts use it, they don't provide much info with quotes from "Director of Nursing" or "General Manager" I take it these people have names. Although there are pictures on their website so perhaps in I our best Lloyd Grossman impersonation we should ask 'Now who works in a hospital like this?' (of course that’s assuming they haven’t used general stock hospital photos from elsewhere)

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not against this idea (especially as, many years ago, myself and a couple of others were trying to peddle services of a similar nature ourselves).

Actually, it's a hard sell. Senior management don't usually enjoy being told they are making an arse of things, in my experience! Presentations are one thing, but getting a contract, then doing the actual work (to the satisfaction of all concerned - and that includes a whole bunch of folk - some (many?) of whom may not be too keen on co-operating in the first place), and then getting paid, may sound easy ... but it's not. I wish Pentagon bonne chance!

I presume that the company is staffed by ex-NHS people who (like many others, I should imagine) became a bit fed up with the poor equipment management practices that (to my mind, at least) are almost bound to be the norm in large, publicly funded, government run establishments, where "pride of ownership" is unlikely to be uppermost in equipment users' minds.

"We are highly trained healthcare professionals and should, therefore, be equipment users not equipment owners".

"If I can't scrape the funds together from my revenue budget to buy the BP Monitor I need (Current utilisation rate 20%), I'll just get the Friends to buy it for me". - Ward Sister

It all sounds pretty genuine to me!

It could be a program where pride of ownership is not uppermost in users minds or it could be yet another equipment lease back scheme which often hids in the sheeps clothing of equipment management or rfid schemes.

As they say the devil's in the detail and I think you would need to get first hand recommendations from trusts using their product before considering it.