EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management Managed v's In House Service

Has anyone made a paper or comparison of the current in house service v's a manaegd equipment service?. I need some guidance to keep the Jackal's off my back.
Email me:- paul.kirkby@kingstonhospital.nhs.uk

There are 2 main areas why management would consider a contractor over in-house, Cost & control. Can you obtain any quotations of managed services and compare your performance against them? Equipment downtime, PPM's quantity and completion, spare part procurement etc.

There is no quick answer to this one without at least some information about the circumstances where you are. It would be better if a technical survey were to be carried out. Only then could proper advice be offered.

However ... what is driving the jackals? Are they only interested in making savings, or are you experiencing failings they aren't happy about (unable to recruit techs, behind with PM ...whatever)? Whatever the reason, you had better make it clear from the start that "savings" equals "reduced service"!

My own tendency has always been to cut to the chase, and home in on core activities. Namely:-

1) The condition of the equipment (is, and how, is the kit being maintained?)
2) The service provided (response times etc.)

Everything else is incidental, in my opinion. And if they want the kit maintained, and they want an in-house service (to be there to respond, etc.), not only does it need to be adequately funded, but it's their job to fund it!

When I made the QA form, earlier in the forum was the very reason to keep Jackals away...

I want to ensure that we are doing a good job. Hope you apprecaite my forward planning now Mr Hannis !

Oh JOY !!!!

As the manager of a private/third party biomed company, I just can't wait to see how this is going to go......

Let the games begin

and just to add fuel to the fire (and before I go off to bed), third party companies can only challenge in-house if they offer better value, and that includes better results (KPIs) @ lower costs. This is what we "sell" because we can supply it. I have worked on both sides of this and know this to be the case. We avoid the endless overheads (top heavy management for one) and hence are able to "do the job" for less cost.....

discuss........

I have also worked on both sides. My overall view remains that in-house is (should be) best, basically on grounds of continuity, local knowledge ... and response time.

However ... sometimes, in-house services either cannot be provided (due to lack of recruits etc.) or fall short in some regard, and that's when an "off the shelf" solution from outside may be best for all concerned.

Also, and as I have mentioned (many times) before, personally I like the tidiness that the fixed-term contract can bring (if properly supervised by the client ... and there's the rub).

As always, the Bottom Line remains:- the kit is there, and it has to be maintained. It doesn't really matter too much how it is maintained (and by whom), just as long as it is!

@Umish

It takes more than just bits of paper.

But what I really appreciate is ... er, good spelling!

Now now Geoff, no personal attacks please.

Speling wats taht?

Geoff, when the spelling fails, make your own words up "roamings"

Why not? And how about using "biomed" as a verb? And what about "biomeding" (as in "biomeding around the world")?

Spelling? Biomeding or biomedding ... which do you prefer?

That's how language works. That is, it evolves.*

* Unless it happens to be French, of course.