EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management Risk-Centred Maintenance

Geoff,
Good point. Has anyone actually contacted the HSE? Would you like to give them a call and report back on your conclusions?

Who - me? You must be joking, Mate. The less dealings I have with Government quangos the more I like it. Personally, I couldn't care less about the H&SE. To my mind it's just another career-building juggernaut for salaried civil-service types, seemingly intent on stopping people like myself from doing anything. No, my own allegiances are with the rural people of England (the best people, in my opinion)!

Geoff, to go back to my point re servicing intervals, I would have to agree that some manufacturers use the terms "adequate", "regular service intervals", "routinely". All these are vague and provide no real guidance. There are those however, that stipulate, 6 monthly, annually and also provide a list of tasks to be completed at these intervals. These are the ones I was raising the question, what happens if they are not performed by a trained technician at the intervals stated?
Here we try to combine, both manufacturer's recommendations and risk analysis. So if a manufacturer states twice annually and we have a number of monitors that have never broken down apart from the odd bp cuff or SPO2 probe, we go once yearly and then look if any genuine faults have occurred.
Graham

No problem with that, Graham. Combining both manufacturer's recommendations and risk analysis is cool. But what about the cases where the manufacturer's recommendations are non-existent, or simply a load of nonsense (both cases have not been unknown in my experience)? How would m'Lud react to those, I wonder (would he even understand the issue at all)?

I've never really bought the idea that manufacturers are the final arbiter of equipment maintenance. They are the manufacturers (they design, make and sell the kit. We are the maintainers. And we need to be consistent in our approach across a whole range of equipment, not just one manufacturer's product line.

My take is that the Biomed Chief is the guy with the local knowledge, etc., etc. - and it's up to him (her) to develop sensible maintenance policies and carry them through. That's why he (she) gets paid all that money!

Geoff
I think the idea of the manufacturer setting service intervals and procedures is based on the technical bits and risks of the equipment. Perhaps on a different note, it also has the added bonus to the manufacturer of guaranteeing further income from spares or service contracts.
I quite agree that some recommendations are rubbish (see earlier comments i.e. adequate etc)and even changing of some parts regularly beggars believe (all more income).
Where there is no definite interval, I agree, m'Lud would be totally confused and not have the benefit of years of experience in fixing the kit and therefore setting our own procedures.
Graham

In my opinion, depending on how,when and where the equipment is used should be an important factor when deciding service shedules. As Graham as stated, using a risk assesment is a great idea to save a little cash, time and allow us to turn more attention to higher risk equipment.

But could you stand up in court and convince the necessary people that the equipment has been "looked after properly" even though the recommended manufacturers service period had been ignored?

Would the manufacturer advise their service engineer to perform a PM on Vent A more frequently than Vent B because its used everyday and Vent B is only used once in a blue moon?

As my boss always says. Just do what the company would do, thats what the customer is paying for!

Am I missing something here ? is it the norm these days, then, that techs get dragged off to stand before the bench every time a piece of kit fails (damn, things are far worse than I imagined)? The fact that the manufacturer would service kit that has sat in the cupboard since his last visit reflects more upon the (lack of) equipment management at the hospital than the manufacturer's money grasping. If kit fails during use (ie, unexpectedly), then the principles of Risk-Centred Maintenance have not been properly carried through, simple as that. As you may recall, that's what preventive maintenance is supposed to be all about! If your boss is happy 'just doing what the company would do', why doesn't he (she?) just get rid of you lot and bring in the company, I wonder?

Over the past 8 years I have seen this topic come and go, but I do feel that the EBME world of risk analysis with regard to maintenance has also changed. More of us are 'risk-aware'. We are using some common sense in exactly the way Graham put it. Companies very rarely state we should carry out 6 monthly servicing. This is a habit - carried over from the past.
We should check the manual - the MTBF (mean time between failure) rates - etc. It gives us the information we require. I get my car serviced 3 times a year, high annual mileage = shorter service intervals. If I did low annual mileage, I would get my car serviced once a year.

This is the basic logic behind RCM. Do it properly, but only when it needs doing.

Bravo!

lol sorry goeff, ive been watching far too much american tv!!!

Maybe i should have phrased my opinion differently.
For example: If a manufacturer recommends a functional check every 6 months, service kit every year (regardless of hours used) and your department only performs the service every year (because its not used very often) are you not liable for anything if the equipment should fail etc?

Using your car as an example, great idea John and I completely understand your point.

I just do as im told and follow the service manual/worksheet.

Maybe medical equipment manufacturers should use a standard, every XX months, or use every XX hours the equipment is used.

I think the old seimens vents have to be serviced every 6 months or 1000 hrs used. does that mean the vent we have as a backup hidden in the cupboard will have a kit fitted every 6 months even though it will never be used 1 hr nevermind a 1000 lol.