Point 1) ... not under the "rules" of Evidence-Based
PM you couldn't. It only applies to PM (surely all the clues are there)!
Point 2) ... see above! Fault codes (exit codes from Work Orders) are simply not valid as a basis for adjusting PM intervals. That's why George's points about NPF (No Problem Found) - although interesting - have no impact on Evidence-Based PM.
Taken to an extreme:- even if a biomed turns out a
thousand times to a "no fault found" situation, that wouldn't indicate that a change in PM interval is on the cards, but rather (obviously, I would have thought) that staff need a bit of help in how to operate the kit! In short, it would indicate a training issue, rather than one of maintenance.
Meanwhile, the "evidence" held on the database should have originated from the Techie, anyway. Where else could it have come from?
What I was after (and still am) from this thread is:- what form does this "evidence" take, and how best should it be presented as a case to adjust PM intervals? My own thought (as I have said a few times already) is a simple interrogation of an agreed number of previous PM records to establish whether or not, in each case, a repair (or similar intervention) was found to be needed during the PM procedure. Up to the last three PM's, say.
I haven't just dreamed this stuff up, but have gleaned it from the progress made over the years by others (usually American biomeds) in developing innovative equipment maintenance models. The informed opinion of thoughtful people, based upon their experience of supporting large inventories of equipment, and a consensus of like minds. If (like them) you seek a better way, you shall invariably find it!
For more ... see
here.
