Evidence of poor operator skills, maybe. We're talking about two different things, George.
What I'm talking about is applying (the limited resources available to) maintenance activity where it is most needed through a system of assigning summed Risk factors (risk of failure, primarily from the patients' point of view) to each equipment type. From Risk we arrive at Priority, and PM then gets tackled in that order. In such a system it is acknowledged that some (many, perhaps) low-risk items will never get PM'd at all (as we shall run out of time available - and this is surely a "real world" scenario). Building on that approach, we have the option to adjust PM
intervals based upon actual equipment reliability over time (as the years pass by) in the hope that we shall one day arise at the optimum interval in each case. "PM equilibrium", if you like. One measure of reliability is whether or not repairs are indicated at PM. Such "evidence" is then presented to whomever is in charge for them to sanction (authorize) a change of PM interval(s). What I am interested here is:- are other "evidence"
metrics available (and valid) and how is such evidence best presented? That's it.
On the other hand you seem to be fixated on poor equipment skills on the part of clinical users. Fair enough, but that's an entirely different ball game, I would have thought, and one best addressed through equipment training of the user, surely. That is, nothing at all do do with PM, Risk-Based or otherwise.
You have mentioned requests for service resulting in (many) "no fault found" situations. We have all seen many of those, no doubt.
But if the Fault Code was NPF ... my own interest there is:- what happened next? What about the Action Code (the action carried out by the biomed)? To me this is the important point.
1) User Advised
2) User Manual Provided
3) User Trained
4)
Etc. ...
In other words ... close the loop (and finish the job).
That's how properly devised systems should work!
