Hello All

Has anyone a list of standardised medical device types in excel format that they are willing to share with me? Ideally, along recognised international lines.
It's the old problem of free form fields. Every Biomed can describe the same device differently! (Going through an exercise with a Community inventory, and it would be nice to impose some order).
Probably about 900 or so, generic device types?
I am sure there must be something similar to the ECRI format freely available in the public domain.

Regards
Sean

All I have (and all I have ever needed myself) is what we might call the "TaskMaster format" ... which is freely downloadable from this website. For example:-


It also includes typical Risk Levels, suggested PM intervals (which all ties in to various PM regimes), and electrical safety class ... etc.

I can export to .xls if you want, but why not take a look at TM first and see if it's what you're after. Following a successful download, call the appropriate browser with keys Alt+W E C (that is, Browses -> Equipment -> Classes). Issue Ctrl+N to add your own codes.

Once you have set the Export Format to "XLS" you can export directly from the browser using (for example) Ctrl+X if you wish.

Sean, PM me your work email, I may be able to assist.

Sean check your email

Good luck with that. I was tasked with rationalising the equipment types on our database. After many weeks I managed to reduce the number of different types from over 3000 to approx 1200. Unfortunately I can't produce a list from our system. One of my colleagues is still working on sorting out the models, a nightmare-ish task. Deciding if a 8V13000 is the same as a BVI3000

Which is exactly why you need to have a standardised naming system (drives me BLOODY NUTS )

No need to go nuts ... twenty years ago (whilst working with techs for whom English wasn't their first language - if you see what I'm saying) I decided that sensible codes are the only answer.

As long as the correct code is allocated (and can be changed later if found to be wrong), then the other fields can be in Arabic (or, if you prefer, Swahili) and it shouldn't make a whole lot of difference!

Needless to say, it's a similar story with the naming of parts, maintenance tasks, and all the rest.

Been there, done that.

Those were smaller hospitals than Bill's, no doubt. But I used to visit the sites, crank up the database, and wade through the mess until I was rewarded with something I just love:- a clean set of data. Sometimes I had to get off my butt and actually visit the kit, just to be sure, but it usually took me a matter of hours (or at worst, days). But weeks? What's the matter with you guys?

Thanks Guys
Some Good stuff so far! When we can populate the device types meaningfully, the next stage will be models and manufacturer data. Whoa! Maybe risk scores / factors?

But, I intend not to jump the gun (too soon), Keep it coming

By the way, Geoff that’s a good system there mate!

Regards
Sean

Did you spot the bug (corrected now, of course)?

Once again, for the life of me, I can't see why the National Health Service doesn't have its own standard nomenclature!

The only problem with having a standardized list is the end-user.
Radiographic/Fluoroscopic Systems, General-Purpose, Remote-Controlled, ECRI name; x-ray machine, end-user name. Ultrasound machines will never be called Scanning Systems, Ultrasonic, General-Purpose; Having a standard list is fine for the inventory, but for everyday use, I don't think so.

The user can call it whatever they like (as they will, and do).

But the folk that actually use the "system" (ie, the biomeds) have to be able to interpret correctly. It's all part of the job, as it has always been.

Hint 1: when all else fails, techs need to get off their butts and go out and have a look!

Hint 2: don't use ECRI codes!

You have to start somewhere!

Start?

Neil, we were together at Yanbu in 1993 ... you can't come the "Old Soldier" with me, Mate.

As both of us know so well (having spent half a life-time at it), all this stuff was done and dusted many years ago (as I say, in my own case at least, twenty or more years ago).

We tried the ECRI nomenclature* in Oman in 1985, and found it fell short of what we needed. I was using a card index on that project, but still managed to sort it all out nicely enough.

Sometimes (as in:- always) you just have to sit down with pen and paper, and over a couple of cups of tea work out an appropriate regimen for the circumstances you find yourself in. That is, work it all out for yourself.

After all, as I like to say:- "Rocket Science it Ain't"!

* To be fair, I always liked their I/PM stuff, though. Anyone else remember "Health Devices"?

IF, it was done and dusted, there would be no need for any one to start this thread.

Perhaps Sean was just looking for a bit of moral support.

As we know, the same old stuff keeps coming around.

Next we'll be back to Risk-Based PM, I expect. Or do I mean:- hope?

DaveC & Bill are still into this as well, the main problem appears that no one system is best for everyone.

Yes, Neil. That's why, if you want it done properly (and/or to your own satisfaction) you have to develop your own.

@Geoff. I should have mentioned that I had to fit the task round my normal activities, tea breaks, chatting-up oh and repairing the odd bit of kit

Maybe a naming system similar to the way botanists sort the latin names for plants would work. They seem to be able to do it in just 3 steps , family, genus, species.

So if we dropped the latin and used a similar hierarchical structure them we might be getting somewhere.......

(do I need to be above band 6 to think like this?????)

Yes, you've obviously missed your true location.

Whilst "the computer" may do OK with a hierarchical structure applied to equipment classifications, as we all know (and as Neil has recently highlighted) the nurses et al would still stick to their "traditional" descriptions. And why not?

This is one of the reasons that I have always advocated tagging equipment. An asset (or property) tag will do, but a properly thought out Control No system is even better!

That is, instead of referring to the "Dinamap" (not) or the "Billi-Lamp" (or what-have-you), staff are "encouraged" to call in NBP-04-123, PHT-03-006 ... etc.

But, personally I like the idea of Latin ... just like the doctors used to use when scribbling out prescriptions. You know, to maintain that air of mystery.

Meanwhile, check out this link.

Botanical naming convention allows for a common name. Still think we could get the cross reference of common name to a hierarchical struture done by the number crunching machine, leaving us humans to call it by a common name..

Yes.

It's just another data field, after all.

Relational databases are good at that sort of thing. That's what they do (that is, relate to each other).

Just as long as the key-field (linking field) is something sensible. And therein lies the "problem":- someone has to feed the data into the "number crunching machine". Sounds a bit like we're going around in circles here (see Sean's original post).

The bottom line with stuff like this is that it takes what some folk seemingly aren't able to give much of ... that is:- effort!

They want "recognised" (off the shelf) standards. Quick - instant, even - solutions (even though the "problem" has been laying around for years, in many cases). Meaning:- they don't have to do anything themselves. Remember, there are 24 hours in everyone's day!

I wonder what happened to this thread (or is it yet another that has withered on the vine).


You got that around the wrong way, Sean, if you don't mind me saying. I believe that a better way is to get it done in this order:-

1) Model
2) Manufacturer
3) Type (equipment type or class)

In the real world (of tech support) you may never get to No.3) ... and frankly, it may not even matter!

The other point that perhaps needs to be stressed (Bill, Neil) is that (for the exercise that Sean was talking about) it doesn't matter what the users call the kit. They're not the ones using the database, doing the planning ... whatever.

There's no IF about it, Neil.

I myself developed a hierarchical equipment naming system almost thirty years ago. And - having just come across it on an old hard-drive - reckon that it wouldn't need too much editing to remain useful to this day.

I'll spare you the details (as I know I would just be wasting time anyway), but in essence I'm sure we could all agree to ten (or a dozen or so) basic or main groupings and then sub-divide (and sub-divide again, ad nauseam) from there - using codes, numbers or whatever you prefer.

Examples of the first grouping (left-hand side of the hierarchical code):-


Each division (and continuing sub-division) should be so clear and beyond doubt that it will be obvious where each equipment encountered falls with the hierarchy. Hopefully we can all agree that "CT Scanner" (or whatever you want to call it or them) would come under IMG, for example. That is, it doesn't belong under any other grouping.

In the system I'm looking at, IMG was assigned the number "3" ... and "Computed Tomography Equipment" ended up as 31. Other kit within the CT group became 31-nn (01 to 99) ... etc. It could just as easily have been IMG-1-nn (or even IMG-01-nn). It doesn't really matter as long as whatever rationale is devised is followed through (that is, designed in the first instance, and then continued).

As an example of further sub-division:-


And again:-


... I'm sure you get the picture!

I know that many folk on here scoff at the very thought of "home grown" (or DIY), and seemingly prefer to simply bung £££ taxpayers' money at every "problem" (and yet still don't get stuff finalized). But it doesn't have to be that way.

We could do (agree) it once and for all right here on the forum if the will was there.