Before someone comes on here again insisting that Risk-based PM is all nonsense, and that everyone is obliged to blindly follow whatever PM interval (and procedure) the manufacturer recommends in each case, here is "chapter and verse" from DB-2006(05) (which, as far as I am aware, contains the current equipment management "guidelines" issued by the MHRA ... that is, an Agency of British government):-
Under Section 8.4 (Planned Preventive Maintenance). Note against
Service Interval ...
Should be based on the manufacturer’s recommendation, taking into account how much the equipment will be used.
So doesn't that simple phrase "
taking into account how much the equipment will be used" open the door to lengthening the PM interval beyond that recommended by the manufacturer, as long as agreed conditions are met, and documented?
By the way (and in my opinion) DB-2006(05) contains a whole load of common-sense, well-reasoned "policy statements"* (and not before time, I might add), and I hope and assume that, by now, all government hospitals and others responsible for maintenance and support of medical equipment follow its guidance. To my mind, the only trouble with "guidelines" like these is that (just like the Highway Code) they are not actually made compulsory by Law!
*
Like, for example, permitting spare parts to be sourced from alternative suppliers as long as they are to "the same specification" and that sourcing decisions are properly "risk assessed, costed and documented". Happily, it also reminds us of the legal basis for carrying out electrical safety testing (EWR under the HASAWA). But unfortunately, it is a bit vague about just when (and to which Standard) these should actually be carried out. Let's hope that the next issue of such "guidelines" is able to endorse IEC-62353, and be done with it!
