EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management Risk Assessment of Medical Equipment

Surely the issue of service manuals is a sideline to the main point here ?
The risk score for a piece of equipment won't be dramatically affected by whether or not you have a service manual, will it ?

I see where Louis is coming from Roy

If you don't have a service manual, how do you determine the depth and frequency of service required.

This is crucially linked to risk assessing and placing items onto a scale of scoring.

Some of the most complicated looking equipment I've seen has, by manufacturer's information, required the least / minimum ammount of technical servicing.

Whilst not solely vital in risk scoring due to other factors such as user intervention, patient connectivity etc etc, it is probably the best "rule of thumb" from a technical stand-point when starting to risk score.

I have often heard, and seen, different answers from manufacturers when asked about their servicing schedules. What they say should be done and what, sometimes, actually happens is two completely different things.

A service manual gives you the "chapter and verse" as to what "should" be done.

This still doesn't remove the scenario of the "blow the dust out, safety test and leg it" OEM service visit...but that's another story!!!

Thanks Dave. Mr. Roy, Louis thought that was quite obvious my friend, This isn’t about service manuals its about HOW OFTEN TO USE THEM. If you fail to service an item Hmm lets say a humble regulator fails whilst on a patient and injures him/her, (bet you don’t service all your regs either mate, we sure as hell dont ) Mr. Judge’s first question at the hearing will be, what did the manufacturer recommend regarding correct maintenance to these items.

Louis III

Absolutely right ! I know - I've been there and it was the coroners first question !

But surely everything needs servicing and how much servicing is required or the content of that servicing, doesn't affect how likely the equipment is to cause someone serious harm. Some equipment which requires absolute minimal servicing - because it's all surface-mount components and no moving parts - has the potential to kill, whereas equipment which has to be dismantled, cleaned, have new valves fitted, new filters installed, re-assembled, performance tested and safety tested twice a year (depending on use) couldn't kill anyone if it tried (unless it caught fire, but then almost anything has the potential to do that !).

I understood that the risk scoring was for everyone's benefit, not just us technicians to tell us what our servicing priorities are. It's extremely useful for equipment trainers and clinical risk managers, to name but two and they aren't in the slightest bit interested in what we do when we service the equipment.

If we were just considering an internal system peculiar to EBME or Med Elec or Med Phys, I'd agree with you 100% - but I don't believe we are - or at least I don't think we should be.

Hmm, Could not agree more Roy my fellow Tech. But everyone is using different formulas?, (try this link from our brother Alan Pakaln. I have a few more, which resolve differently.

web page link

If we are going to carry out our own risk assessments OFFICIALLY, then should it not be up to the MDA to get off their glutei and draught a standard we can all adhere to, after all is that not what the tax payer pays them for.
This is a problem gentleman, as Louis said earlier we also have a duty to the taxpayer.

Louis III

Absolutely Spot on there Louis. Any Fool can spend someone else,s money,its easy, it does,nt need any special talent !! If in doubt just ask your Local Councilor, their real good at it !!!

Is Mandy still with us, I wonder ?

If you are, are you finding any of this helpful ?

Apols for not inputting sooner - but being a part timer, I have other (better) things to think about!
Louis is absolutely correct re central guidance from the ivory towers of the MHRA, but how mnay worthy topics can we apply that argument to
Surely the best way forward with this (to avoid lots of wheel reinvention + numerous creative/arbitrary methods of scoring) is to ttry to get the various benchmarking clubs that we are all involved with to take it forward as an issue. Hopefully, this will 'distill' some key points which can be proposed as best practice, and provide us with some consistency (therefore better gluteous protection, since it would be applied across the NHS) in our scoring.

I am more than happy to try to contribute my experiences/views to this if there is a chance that we can reach some sort of central core methodology (even if it means abandoning what I have already done - ) Though I am heartened that my local benchmarking group viewed it very favourably, it needs more input/ discussion. Anybody else willing to push this one?

Excellent proposition Paul, but alas Louis cannot join your table as Louis is banished to the hotter extremes of the universe, however I am sure the good brethren of EBME will accompany you on the mission in question. I have one gluteus twitch here though my friend, do you not think the manufactures need to play a key part in this, and Louis cannot help but feel they will refuse to decrement service time, this will only reduce the mega wonga they gain from their “guidelines”, and remember my friend, these guidelines are a legality, an ABUSED legality, but never the less, they have us by the short and curlies . The only way around this that Louis can see is to have the correct staff in place to cover all the work at the offsky, so to speak. Good luck everyone, but again, where are the MHRA when you bloody well need them.

Louis III