Home Articles Downloads Forum Products Services EBME Expo Contact
Active Threads | Active Posts | Unanswered Today | Since Yesterday | This Week
Service Manuals & Schematics Jump to new posts
Re: Diagnostic X-ray Apparatus Model: SMS-325-GM Geoff Hannis Yesterday at 12:48 AM
Can you not follow the link and download the .pdf?
3 466 Read More
Technical Assistance Jump to new posts
Re: Alsatom SU-140 Geoff Hannis 09/12/23 7:01 PM
I found this in one of the Alsatom manuals:-

“Cross” activation:- if a conflict exists from user activation and selector mode position. The unit advises with blinking yellow and blue lights for CUT and COAGULATION and a intermittent acoustic signal as well. In models with displays unit shows EEE on CUT display. To solve this problem, simply stop the activation.

Cross activation usually means that the Cut and Coag pedals are being pressed at the same time.
1 105 Read More
Service Manuals & Schematics Jump to new posts
Re: Valleylabâ„¢ FX8 Energy Platform service manual Geoff Hannis 07/12/23 6:04 PM
I have never seen Error 159 declared anywhere on line. But check-out this earlier thread. There may be a clue there.

Good luck.
17 9,924 Read More
Medical Equipment Management Jump to new posts
Re: Failed/deferred PPM - what are the implications/s John Sandham 04/12/23 10:29 AM
Good points Geoff.
... or mandated by the Risk-Based PM system?
..... Perhaps yet another research topic hoves into view
7 653 Read More
Medical Equipment Management Jump to new posts
Re: Donation of medical equipment to low and middle in vitapablo 04/12/23 9:51 AM
I think maintenance forecasts should be one of the important points to take into account. A digital X-ray is an abyss of technology and diagnostic quality; but: flat panels have a bios power cell (degradable, inaccessible) and it is possible that the useful life of the panel had not expired (low usage rate) but the life of the battery requires its replacement. It is difficult for me to find the optimal point between maximum performance and maintainability with low technical resources
10 851 Read More
Training Jump to new posts
Re: Repairing and Maintaining Biomedical Devices Geoff Hannis 27/11/23 2:56 PM
It's good to hear from you, Frank.

Thanks for that "heads up".

But, there's no need to be shy about the excellent stuff (by Chris Mol) on your own website.
1 297 Read More
EBME Website Jump to new posts
Re: Consultant Owned Equipment Geoff Hannis 21/11/23 11:18 AM
Or even using the Mk 1 eyeball.

See comments made in the past about "walk-through inspections".

PM is good, too!
11 1,234 Read More
Professional Issues Jump to new posts
Re: Risk Assessments Geoff Hannis 18/11/23 7:06 PM
Originally Posted by Geoff Hannis
Yes, there are a fair number of "academic biomeds" about (although mainly in the States, from what I've seen). Plenty of learned papers written, and so forth. In days gone by, I used to read them.
I realise it's "bad form" to quote oneself, but I thought it worthwhile to elaborate just a little by way of the following notes (if only to remind anyone embarking on assigning Risk Scores and (or) maintenance priorities to equipment that matters may not be as simple as they first appeared):-

Writing in a paper published in 1989 Larry Fennigkoh and Brigid Smith (F&S) pioneered an approach that used a numerical algorithm to determine which items of medical equipment should be included in an equipment management system.

The F&S algorithm scores equipment on three factors:-

1) Function (2 to 10)
2) Risk (1 to 5)
3) Required maintenance (1 to 5)

The sum of these scores yielded an "equipment management" (EM) number. Equipment with an EM of 12 or above was an indication that the item be included in the equipment maintenance programme. Note that this implied that some items need not be included in the programme.

The F&S algorithm (and its many derivatives) have been incorporated into computerized maintenance systems and adopted by various healthcare organizations.

In 1996 Mike Capuano and Steve Koritko (C&K) expanded upon the F&S idea. The big step forward made by the C&K model was the possibility of automatic extension (or reduction) of the PM interval according to specific criteria. To my mind, this was the "Big Idea"!

In 2000 Binseng Wang and Alan Levenson (W&L) recommended a modification to the F&S model to add a "mission criticality" score to reflect the importance of a particular device to the overall mission of the healthcare organization. I did not like that terminology, myself - it sounded "a bit corporate" to me. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer the emphasis to be placed "from the patients' point of view".

From a distance of thirty years or more, some now question the F&S model. For instance (as mentioned above), it is possible for a device with established maintenance requirements to be excluded simply because it has a low score. And some versions of the algorithm use the total score to determine not only inclusion but also frequency of maintenance (which are fundamentally different concepts, and should be decided on different criteria).

Meanwhile, in 2001 Malcolm Ridgway proposed a different approach:- one in which medical devices to be included in the maintenance programme were those that are "critical devices" (in the sense that they have significant potential to cause injury if they do not function correctly) and are "maintenance sensitive" (in that they have significant potential to malfunction if not provided with adequate PM). Yes, this is (was) progress.

Ridgway excludes non-critical devices, and any for which there is no evidence of benefit from PM. This first point may be disputed by many, especially those who prefer to include all maintainable items in the PM schedule (that's me, then). And the second point can be challenged on what exactly is meant by "evidence" in such a context. For instance, it could simply mean that the PM procedure, and its interval, is "spot-on"!

No doubt the evolution has continued over the last twenty years or so, but I no longer follow such issues in any great depth. Perhaps someone else may be able to bring us up to date.

By the way, regarding the issue of "critical devices" ... I recall my boss at the time trying to push the idea of "life critical" equipment (I think that's what he called it) ... and that was 43 years ago! That one withered on the vine, mainly because our organisation required "inspections" of everything on a calendar basis anyway (mostly quarterly, but sometimes monthly) .... and after he had realised how difficult it was to answer the question:- "where do we draw the line" (what's the criteria)? I seem to recall lots of "philosophical debates", though (some things never change).
6 486 Read More
Free discussion Jump to new posts
Re: CPAP SERVICING Geoff Hannis 17/11/23 5:03 PM
Hospital (Trust) equipment Policies shall over-rule any "local" policies (the "cardio-resp" department in this case).

As mentioned on an earlier thread, kit like this should be given the "once over" (inspection for damage, at least) by a tech every time it appears on site ("walk-in clinic" or whatever). Also, both staff and patients must be encouraged (prevailed upon) to report faults. After all, the kit does not belong to them (neither the patients or the staff).

In my opinion, not having everything on the database (register) sounds like the slippery slope to negligence. What's it to be next ... what other equipment is to be disregarded in this way ... where do we draw the line?

As Dustcap mentions, all items of powered medical equipment should appear on the PM schedule, even if the inspection interval is "every five years" (I would max-out at one year, myself).

And yes, when (and wherever) "difficulties" are encountered, get those resisting to set down their objections in writing.

In passing, I have always advocated that all items belonging to each Hospital should be accounted for; biomed kit on the CMMS database, Estates stuff on whatever system they use (remember WIMS, anyone?) ... and all other property (chairs, et al) under Property Control.
2 302 Read More
Technical Assistance Jump to new posts
Re: Giraffe incubators Dustcap 17/11/23 4:06 PM
One reason for this is normally because the incubators are still very warm when they clean them, this often produces misting and cracks whatever product you use. Allow the device to cool down before cleaning, annoying yes but its either that or lots of new parts and costs.
1 215 Read More
Service Manuals & Schematics Jump to new posts
Re: Service Manual Toshiba SXT-9000A. Electromedical 14/11/23 5:00 PM
I only need a service manual Toshiba sxt-9000a
1 1,686 Read More
Free discussion Jump to new posts
Re: Band 5 Job Description Neil Porter 12/11/23 12:26 PM
Hi Neoteny,

Have you looked on the NHS jobs page?
1 524 Read More
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 190 guests, and 136 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
lauru2017, Banti, Mlqg_Bkdn, W.S., Joseph28
10,152 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Most Online5,980
Jan 29th, 2020
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5