... but if biomeds , who are best positioned to address the NPF issue , embraced this as a issue via the system ( using safety & quality and consistently measuring NPF as a reportable metric ) then how often you do or have to service a device almost becomes a non issue.
Sorry George, but I don't see what your're saying there.
PM intervals cannot become a "non-issue" if they are being mandated by Regulatory Bodies!
Meanwhile, NPF is often just another "fault code" in my experience (and therefore already "reportable" - potentially, at least). Such codes are a response to Work Orders or RFS (Requests for Service), surely (and not PM)?
I may be a bit dim (more tea required), but I can't see how that impacts on the PM interval - especially (as I keep banging on about) if the "Risk-Based Model" is applied.
As I have already said:-
I would propose (as candidates for lengthening PM intervals) all equipment that didn't need a repair [definition required] at all of the previous three (say) PM visits.
But this applies to
PM visits not Work Orders. And if it
were to be applied to PM results, then an accumulation of NPF codes should serve to trigger an extension of the PM interval (in a Risk-Based, auto-adjusting system). In passing, note that it also works in reverse:- PM intervals could be
shortened if so many consecutive PM's
did require a repair (intervention, whatever is decided). What we are seeking is PM equilibrium - or if you like, the "Goldilocks Condition"!
