Addendum to the two posts above ... I have been having problems editing these this morning (with the wierdness of an earlier revision finally lodging itself in place) ... but never mind.

But (just to be clear) when I say all of the previous PM's in the first post, I really mean "all of the previous three PM's" (as we had chosen three as our "Recent PM's repair check" sample).

And, at the post above "... as it would look back at only the last PM to see whether a repair was needed" ... would have better phrased as:-

"... as it would look back at only the last PM to see whether a repair had been needed"!

Semantics? Not really. Just clarity, I hope.

With the Risk-Based PM model, once we have established Risk level figures for each equipment type, we can begin to assign PM intervals accordingly.

Remember that our equipment Risk level figures are simply a totaled score (plus and minus) of a list of weighted numbers that we have established to indicate the perceived risk of failure (primarily, risk to the patient, that is). The greater the risk (the higher the Risk figure), the more often PM is needed (as those who believe in PM would expect ... and you have to believe)!

In turn the Risk governs the frequency of PM (that is, how often it needs to be carried out). Risk and frequency are directly related. As, in turn, are the intervals between PM's in days. So let's begin by assigning 365/Risk as the PM interval.

But having done this, we will most likely be faced with a list of PM intervals that bear no resemblance to those we are traditionally used to. They will probably be much shorter. So to get things back into the realms of reality, we need to apply a common factor (also known in the trade as a "fiddle factor") to all our Risk levels in order to stretch out PM intervals to within the bounds of accepted norms.

A method I have found useful is to establish the average Risk for all equipment under the scheme and work on that figure (that is, the sum of all equipment Risks divided by the total number of equipment items), then decide what is the typical interval you are (or your organisation is) comfortable with (180 days, for example ... let's call this interval the "Initial Set-point") and apply the formula below to arrive at your Factor:-


Once we know our Factor, we can then plug it into the following formula in each case:-


When you sit down and think about it, and play about with a few figures, it all becomes obvious enough!

Combined into a single formula, for each equipment type (that is, each Risk):-


Don't forget that (as mentioned in earlier posts) if you adopt an automatic interval adjustment protocol on top of your Risk-Based scheme (and, why not?) then the PM intervals will tend to step away from those calibrated by the Initial Set-point once the auto adjustment criteria begin to take effect (that is, as time marches on).

Remember also that, in each case, PM Priority is set initially to Risk. Priority should never be less than Risk. Once the Priority figure increases beyond the Risk figure, the more overdue the PM.

The biggest obstacle that I can see is that the equipment with the highest risk factor is usually connected directly to the patient and therefore the availability for PM is very difficult to schedule, we asked the ICU's to inform us as to when a room, patient bed becomes available and we will PM all the equipment within the vicinity, seems to work even if we PM more than scheduled for each area, better safe than sorry.
PS Happy New Year.

That is a practical "real world" failure, rather than a failure of the logical system! Regardless of difficulties in accessing equipment, and all the rest, the Risk-Based system will continue to generate those high (ever increasing, once PM is due) Priority numbers, just as it's designed to do!

Conversely, any PM completed early won't upset the balance of things too much (in fact, not at all). As far as "the system" is concerned, it would simply be so much wasted effort. It will just reset the interval clock in each particular case, and start its happy task of counting up to the next due PM date all over again!

Out of kilter PM will affect the smooth running of the auto interval increase option, of course. It will effectively nullify it!

Here we are, two years later, and nothing more has been added to this thread.

So here I am, two years later, dragging it back into play.

I remain convinced that Risk-Based PM is the answer. So, as we haven't heard anything to the contrary, I'm hoping that everyone is following this PM model now.

I get quite a few complaints that we should stop old threads being regenerated.





Please start a new thread, if one is necessary.
Topic locked.