I hope I may be forgiven for quoting from my own post, but it seems to belong here (at this juncture):-
OK, here's some of the background:-
Although Larry Fennigkoh and Brigid Smith (F&S) may not be exactly household names to many in the UK, they were pioneers (writing in a paper published way back in 1989) of an approach that used a numerical algorithm to determine which 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 yields an "equipment management" (EM) number. Equipment with an EM of 12 or above are included in the equipment maintenance 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 original F&S idea. To my mind, 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.
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 find this a bit OTT, myself.
Twenty years on, some now question the F&S model. For instance, 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).
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). Note that Ridgway excludes non-critical devices, and any for which there is no evidence of benefit from PM.
See also Paul's
response. Any chance of some more comments from you (Paul) regarding this topic? How about some links?
Note that
"Ridgway excludes non-critical devices, and any for which there is no evidence of benefit from PM". Here Malcolm and I must disagree, I'm afraid. Or, put another way, I have yet to be convinced, especially on the first point. And surely the second point can be challenged on what exactly is meant by "evidence" in this context. For instance, it could simply mean that the PM procedure, and its interval, is in fact "spot-on"!
I have always been very much of the old-school "go to the department and PM everything you find" approach! It is (was) known as the "Sweep Method", I believe, but probably does not get used much these days!
Finally (for now, at least)
here's some more background reading.
