The big question is how do you assess the reliability of a piece of equipment? I don't mean just by calculating the hours between failure, like I was taught at big-school, I mean by what yard-stick we use - the expectations of the user, by risk management, the manufacturer or the critical nature of the application? e.g. use in the critical-care or OR environment.
Plus how is damage and abuse factored-in with reliability? It certainly has a bearing on the continued safe-operation of equipment which is, I guess, what most people think reliability should be all about - the equipment being there and working when required.
I think we're lucky that the average Nurse has little interest in the reliability of a piece of kit - it just gets shuffled off to the little man to be fixed when it stops working. You and I probably have greater expectations for the reliability of our videos or cameras than we do for medical equipment that we know takes a real hammering.
The environment the kit is used in and how it is used, or abused, makes the difference. Ideas of reliabilty tend to fall apart when there are other influences. The other thing is the reluctance of users to report damage and other minor faults with equipment so it looks, on paper to be more robust and "reliable" than it actually is.
Regular audit or physical inspection, at predetermined intervals, is a good method of acquiring reliable data on the availability and condition of equipment. Problems with use and abuse are picked up on before they become hazards.
How reliable is a mains-lead on average? Has anybody assessed this?
