Wow Eddie ... you
have got them well trained! But allow me to make two observations:-
1) Am I right in guessing that you have an "on-line" reporting system there (no Post-It's)?
2) That's a good example of when a phone call from ICU would have been more expedient.
In sympathy with others who have posted earlier on this thread, I would say (and in my experience) that it makes little difference
how faults get reported, just as long as they
do get reported. On the other hand (and again, as I have seen), rigid reporting protocols (this box must be filled in, where is the asset code ... and all that b*******) have the opposite effect to the one intended. Staff get intimidated by dogmatic procedures, and faults go unreported ... with the result that we find kit, alone and broken, forlorn (and quietly weeping?), hidden somewhere at the back of nowhere.
To my mind, what happens
after the fault has been reported is what really matters. That is, a timely and efficient response by the biomeds.
In many of my previous lives I have found the need to (attempt to) rebuild good relations (between biomed and the user departments) that had earlier been mortally wounded by others. Invariably by Thought Police types who seem to be hired especially to man so-called Help Desks! That, or the ex-boiler mechanics that sometimes end up in the role of Hospital Engineer. Often, the "official" system needed to be short circuited altogether!
And lastly (as you may imagine), I am also not in favour of on-line (computer network) reporting systems. I'm thinking here of the type that presents the user with a database-style "screen", with the dreaded "boxes" that
must be filled in. Again,
bad juju (the designer may have been proud of it, but it would have been ill-conceived). Not every nurse is a computer
aficionado. However, the more modern intranet (email style) is OK, as it allows the informal "post-it" style to be used!
And finally lastly (!) ... twenty-odd years ago, at one well known shining "monument to engineers and architects", we were all suitably impressed by the Wang terminals (keyboard, screen) that appeared seemingly on every desk, reception counter and nurses' station. Oh yes! What a system! State of the art, Old Chap! That is, until the Ministry took over ... and promptly removed them all. The reason for this decision (a wise one, in retrospect) is that they wanted to employ locals. And "goffer" (or
Office Peon as they were rather quaintly called) was a role for which many were readily suited.
Ah yes ... another example of "appropriate technology"!
