The other side of the coin is that if the pump had failed and caused a reportable clinical incident then it would have soon prompted the risk people to do something e.g. involve EBME management and ask why the equipment wasn't serviced - then the resources would probably be found to replace all device, get the manufacturer in to service the equipment or employ more staff in EBME. These costs might actually be less than they would if John had justified having the equipment serviced regularly so in this instance the financial savings in limiting the resources for maintenance, perceived by the risk assessors, may actually be justified. In hindsight, now that the risk people are aware, if you have 20 or 30 pumps in that condition elsewhere then the associated risks of incidents in the future could be used as an argument for resources perhaps i.e. 20-30x the cost of a single device failing due to not being serviced for 5 years might be greater than actually providing the resources for servicing them properly now. Whatever way you look at it though it's all down to balance of probability and if you're a chancer or a gmabler then you might take that chance; especially if you're a Trust that's backed by insurance schemes, etc, etc.
Any level of risk is evaluated by determining the probability that something, with an associated cost, will occur eventually. Applying measures to mitigate that risk, usually financially in the NHS, is balanced against the cost, usually physical in the NHS but calculated financially, allowing the current level of risk to prevail if the cost of mitigating risk is too high hence there are actually notional "savings" associated with doing nothing to mitigate a certain level of acceptable risk. Not sure how much I'd put on the value of someones health and wellbeing. Problem is, when it comes to equipment, risk is dynamic and depends on lots of other factors (type, model, usage, application, condition of patient, operator skills, condition, servicing, damage, abuse, suitability for purpose, etc, etc) that I don't believe many risk-evaluators are capable of taking on board nevermind EBME managers. Not the ones I've met anyhow. Plus lack of finance is an overriding factor - until there's an incident it seems - so it doesn't necessarily pay to manage risk properly since the penalties for allowing unacceptable risk to prevail are still small, finacially speaking, relative to the cost of mitigation. Insurance and saying you're sorry and it won't happen again M'lud is such a wonderful thing.
I would have thought that, technically speaking, one could come up with an argument that suggested equipment that isn't serviced at appropriate intervals will fail in some way, due to a lack of servicing, it eventually presents a significant risk of some sort. The problem is assessing the significance of this risk, setting aside the finances to mitigate this risk, if it's worth it, which translates to setting an appropriate PPM interval and convincing others that if it is exceeded that the likelihood of a failure in use, hence risk, financial, techncial, physical, will increase not decrease (in all probability). Unfortunately the risk-people I meet seem to rely on retrospective investigations into equipment failures or incidents to prompt action i.e. I don't think there's much projection of potential risk and balancing of this risk against possible costs, going-on with regard to equipment actually. The indicators that are being used to flag risk are wrong or not even being used in my opinion i.e. risk people are oblivious to the real risks with equipment since many are non-technical or more finance-led.
To err on the side of safety, I suppose, would be to allow "over-servicing" (as John has put it) to continue then use the "excessively short" PPM intervals (as John implies) indicated by manufacturers' to put forward the argument to the risk people that more staff are required i.e. this justifies more staff than if less PPM activity is required, as it would by extending PPM intervals locally, beyond manufacturers recommended intervals.
