John,
I have spent considerable time on this issue and have come up with a system which builds on the empirical work already in use in the UK and US. This has been ratified by my Risk committee as an appropriate means of quantifying risk, and optimising resource use. It has been peer reviewed by the NPAG southern benchmarking (EBME)club and has been proposed as 'best practice'
It basically derives a risk score in a similar way to you (High, Med,Low)which is used to prioritise/guide resource utilisation
Planned maintenance could be categorised in the
It considers several risk factors;
Functional, Physical, Location,
and overlays them with maintenance, utilisation, and mission scores (mission = degree of importance to Trust in providing a clinical service)
Obviously there is a lot more to it than assiging scores/weightings. The important thing is that is applies consistency of approach, optimises management of (device)risk, and provides a ready set of performance indicators, as well as the data needed to justify modification of some criteria (maintenance frequencies, relative change in importance to Trust in meeting clinical outputs).
'If PPMs cannot be carried out for any reason, should the EBME Manager use his experience and professionalism in deciding which PPMs are considered necessary?'
Yes, but it needs qualification in light of the risk factors outlined + justified from such evidence. Whilst extensive experience + gut feel are often good enough, trying to justify that to 'the one that got away' to a court will not cut any ice.
Morale = document, document, document.
If you want further info, I am happy to provide
Paul H
