Personally, I have never liked the Asset Register terminology (it is a British term, probably a throw-back from the old ESTMANCODE days – anyone for WIMS)? And yes, the Asset Register was traditionally more of a financial tool than an engineering maintenance one.
Inventory is another over-used word, best to be avoided as it means different things to different people. Americans even use the word as a verb.
What I advocate is the Control Number approach. We used this successfully for years in contractual maintenance situations in a well known Desert Kingdom. Each complete equipment (being a stand alone piece of equipment, or equipment system) is given an engineering control number, and this is the key field on whatever computer system is being used.
There are various ways of arranging the Control Numbers. They can be semi-meaningful, or simply just a number.
Regarding the systems mentioned by Bioman. Yes, there was always debate whether, for example, a diagnostic ultrasound unit should have just the one Control Number, or one for the printer, one for the VCR etc. As long as there is consistency within the hospital, I don’t believe it matters too much. I prefer to allocate just the one number for each system, although on some jobs we used to split down, say, an x-ray system into table, generator etc. because in that way we incurred less of a financial penalty if a system was down, and we couldn’t repair within 5 days. Yes, guys, that’s how it is (was) in the “real world”!
For small items, which are nevertheless “maintainable”, what we used to do is group “miscellaneous and minor” equipment under collective Control Numbers. For example, “all oxygen flowmeters in Ward 11” would be grouped together under one Control Number.
The Property Tag is something else again, and nothing to do with biomed. It is just a tracking label used by Property Management (is there such a thing in the UK NHS)?
As always, my Buddies and I stand by ready to assist with this sort of thing.