Hello Sajeev. And thank you for your kind words (yes, it is indeed difficult sometimes to be humble when you are the Master)!
Unfortunately (as you have so astutely observed), all is not well in the so-called Developed Countries (surely a glance at current news headlines is enough to demonstrate that). There is wastage on a gigantic scale (in all things ... not only healthcare). And, with regards to PM ... well, let's just say that some biomed sheds I know of don't put too much emphasis on it at all.
There are many ways to measure biomed performance. I would advocate emphasis on properly conducted PM. Yes, it's a long-term undertaking (not the short-term quick-fix sort of thing that official policies seem to favour in Modern Britain). And the one "metric" that I would monitor is what may be called "PM effectiveness" ... being (for each equipment):-
(Risk divided by Priority) times 100%Risk is based upon a set of factors decided for each item of equipment (depending upon its criticality, perceived risk to patients ...
etc., etc.), and Priority is the Risk multiplied by a Due Factor (days since last PM divided by the PM interval in days). The higher the Priority figure, the more at risk or significantly overdue the PM.
As Risk appears both at the top and bottom of the "equation", it may be readily appreciated that the Due Factor becomes the controlling element (that is, all PM must be carried out on time ... and when PM becomes overdue that Priority figure will keep on growing as a "reminder"). More advanced metrics use Risk (and other factors) to automatically adjust the PM interval. With a computer program set up to do all this, it's relatively straight forward.
An overall figure (being the sum of all the PM effectiveness percentages for each item of equipment) of 100% indicates perfection, with every PM procedure completed within the schedule (until next week)! It's a job that's never finished (but remember too that rust never sleeps).
