Like Louis, Geoffrey has also looked at a multitude of equipment database structures, but would have to disagree with Louis by saying that the striking thing about them is their similarity!
And modern database (spreadsheet etc.
) software permits swapping between formats with relative ease.
My own stance is that the whole biomed CMMS scenario falls into two camps:- highly-priced "commercial" packages, and lowly (lowly as in "humble", but also as in "zero cost") efforts of the type I usually refer to as "home grown" (which group does Steve Lake's EMS solution fall into? I don't know)!
Contributors to this forum have been known to express strong views in support of both models, which is fair enough.
Your point about a centralized shared database is well-taken. But (in my role of Devil's Advocate), who's to say that your
database (or mine, ECRI's ... or anybody else's) is any better than anyone else's? In my many years in this game, I have often seen techs quite happy with what they had available to them locally, especially if it was what they themselves had developed (ie,
to suit their needs). There's nothing wrong with "pride of ownership", in my opinion (in fact I would like to see far more of it - especially amongst those who we like to call "user staff" - nurses and the like).
"One size fits all" tends not to be the answer, in my experience. What is needed is a logical basic structure, an interface that is readily and totally configurable to suit local needs (dare I say idiosyncrasies?
), and extremely flexible reporting routines (this is probably where SQL scores).
Where we on this forum can make a real difference is in collaboration.
That's where I plant my flag!
Kaz had the right idea, I reckon:-
I propose that we thresh out an agreed specification for the New System, then code it ourselves, step by step, whilst welcoming contributions from the entire community along the way.