EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management Planned preventive maintenance

John. Answer is Yes.
Solution = Trust approved system + plenty of evidence to justify decision

Good example is Physiotherapy. They like to adhere to their professional association recommendations (which unfortunatley have not moved too much with the times to reflect the technological advances in the last twenty years)
This is where a good risk system (databased) will come into its own. You can justify the basline scoring because it empirical/widely used + accepted/part of nationel directives etc.

You can then use your own evidence (ie we have performance/safety checked your 'xyz model interferentials twice/year for the last x years and have not found any to be out of spec/require adjustment. Our (Trust approved) risk system indicates that such testing is not warranted for the risks and dependencies involved)

ie under such a scenario, we would Modify the maintenance element of the risk scoring to reflect this 'reality'. It may show that I should lengthen inspection periods/eliminate altogether.

If you have the necessary authority (Trust approval for your system) AND the evidence, it is my experience that most managers accept the logic/rationale (and would if needed justify it to their own associations).

This does not mean that you can rest on your laurels once you succeed in modifying particular elements of your maintenance programme. On the contrary, your reporting systems then need to become more sensitive to failure modes (ie if you have lengthened PV frequency, or eliminated altogether). Are you subsequently seeing fault calls/failures that you could attribute to such action?

More KPI's for you to measure.

Discrestion is the key my fellow moguls, discretion.

Louis III

Paul,
The powerpoint information you provided is excellent.

Can I visit your establishment to learn more? Would you be interested in doing a presentation later in the year? (I would be happy to work with you on making this into a document for others to download and use.)

Hi everyone,
My philosophy has always been " if it ain't broke, don't fix it "

Paul, Louis would be honoured to cast his mincers over your power point creation.

lyniswern@hotmail.com

Regards

Louis III

John, Paul, Louis
We have looked at reduction in PPM, but not as an overall exercise. We have assessed and reduced some frequencies and well documented our reasons for the action. We have looked at some areas i.e. defibs, where historical laborious testing regimes were in place. A lot of the functions that were being carried out were, and still are user/operator checks. We cannot just walk away from this function, as they probably would not be carried out. We are working with users to try and define these functions, and assist with training where we can. One benefit of this is that it increaces the users familarity with the equipment.
We also now consider PPM frequency when buying equipment, looking for longer service intervals.
One thing that we must consider in our risk analysis is the requirement for electrical safety testing.
I would welcome the chance to look at the risk systems mentioned. If they can be shared on the website that would be great.

Bob..

"John,Paul,Louis! an old pop singer or a pope?"

maybe this would be a good subject for a survey.
who ppms at all?
how often?
what you do?

Hi Bob,
You are right in that there are a great many variables to be considered - many of them either unique to our own organisations, or of differing importance.
I feel though, that you may have missed the point. The purpose is NOT to look for a reason to reduce PPM's, rather to objectively assess the relative risks involved to determine MAINTENANCE priority in a resource constrained world.
User training/familiarity is an important issue, but it is separate from maintenance requirement, and should not be confused (even though there is a clear link).

I will send a copy of my presentation to that old sage Louis (he does the harmonies by the way :-))
to elicit his considered opinion + would be happy to dissemminate more widely after that.

Regards

Paul

Mr. Mundy, what an excellent opportunity to poll our fellow EBME'ers about our PPM obligation.
Louis agrees that the fine balance of manufacturer recommendations Vs labour curtailment must be recognized and as such addressed in such a way to reduce risk. Ostentation to you Mr. Mundy, Ostentation indeed.

Paul my good friend and confederate, is a sage more senior to a mentor? if so …

Huw, Louis wants a sage. Make Louis a sage please? Mr. Cyber-master.

Regards to you all

Louis

199