EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management MANAGED EQUIPMENT SERVICE

Hello,
I was wondering what peoples experiences have been with a managed equipment service? Not in terms of service delivery predominantly but in terms of the impact it has on established clinical engineering departments and the effect it has as whole? Also has anyone witnessed it being cost effective in any term or over any duration? I am interested in your experiences be they good or bad.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Managed Equpiment Service single choice
	Good Idea
	Bad Idea
	No Experience
Votes accepted starting: 24/12/10 1:50 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

Welcome to the forum, Leighton.

I for one cannot give the simple reply that you seem to be seeking. Why not? ... because (in my opinion) the success of MES depends very much on the circumstances prevailing at the original setting.

For example, if (just imagine) the in-house biomed department is utterly useless, or desperately lack resources of some kind, then it is very likely that the MES contractor will shine!

Also, the MES company may be contracted to provide a skill set not available in-house (maintaining some special kit, or whatever).

MES also works well as a method of consolidating into one all the hitherto many and various service contracts with outside service providers. Is that likely to be cost-effective? Yes, I would say so. It also makes things so much easier for the in-house manager, as well (that is, there is only the one number to ring)!

If the MES contract is well set up at the onset (that is, by a client who knows what he wants, and what he is doing), and then properly managed (monitored, measured) during its implementation and operation, then there should be no reason why it should not be a great success. Not (necessarily) to replace the in-house department, but to enhance it.

However, if the whole thing gets badly sold to the in-house guys, and ends up as an "us and them" p***ing contest ... well, that's not much help to anybody. It's always easy for hospital folk to "close ranks against intruders", if (for some reason) that is the prevailing mind-set. And I know, 'coz I've been there!

But at its best, the MES Model is good for rounding the circle, covering the bases, crossing the T's ... and getting the boxes ticked!

I would have to agree, the question posed, is too simplistic.
There are good and bad points, not just either, or.

Dependant upon whereabouts’ you sit within an organisation will colour your response.

Consider external MES approaches as a hurdle to be overcome (when some bright spark thinks he can save money short-term). A measured response from a clued-up Manager, backed up with some Benchmarking data, normally nips this in the bud.

Plenty of examples of this sort of "market testing", it is usually prudent to be prepared for such eventualities these days.

Hello Leighton,

I have also come across good and bad MES providers, as i have come across good and bad EBME services. I think it the cost that inevitably has the most impact. Clinical staff tend to like it because the equipment funding is guaranteed. Whether it is a good or bad idea very much depends on the organisation. If it had a well run In House EBME and good funding for equipment replacement - That is usually better and cheaper (in my opinion) than a well run MES. It allows more flexibility and less bureaucracy.

If you already had a well run in-house department ... why would you ever need to consider bringing in an MES contractor?

Because of the Capital Expenditure costs for new medical equipment.

MES providers will provide the new shiny bit's of kit, but will want to see the start of an income stream, thus insist they take over the maintenance of medical devices to recoup some of their investments.

OK. That sounds like (what might be) an attractive proposition as far as the Bean-Counters are concerned.

But the MES company I am familiar with provides only service (not new equipment).

Geoff,

The defenition of a managed equipment service is usually that they provide the equipment and the servicing, and the Trust pays an annual fee.

This is different to a management maintenance service, where companies do not provide the equipment, only the maintenance provision.

Perhaps ... but not always. Here is a quote from a particular website:-


... and I'm pretty sure that they don't push equipment onto their client(s).

I think we need to hear from Leighton just what it is he is trying to get at.

Hi Geoff,

I believe this is the defenition most execs understand:

In the current NHS climate, trusts are continually looking for ways to reduce their financial exposure. Thus, the management services of a vendor-independent company such as Asteral have great appeal, particularly in the field of laboratory medicine.

Dealing with outdated and obsolete equipment? Handling hundreds of different tenders, contracts, leases and suppliers? Facing unpredictable funding requirements and poor budgeting? Do these issues sound familiar? Owing to the increasing pressures on the NHS, a new style of commercial partnership is emerging to ensure effective provision and management of equipment, reagents and consumables within pathology departments. Called managed equipment services (MES), this concept is a joined-up strategic approach to all elements of equipment management, procurement and maintenance. It helps NHS trusts to reduce equipment downtime and invest in the latest technology, which facilitates process re-engineering and redesign of diagnostic pathways.

Managed equipment service partnerships in the NHS have already been implemented successfully to cover radiology and ultrasound. Modern equipment can be guaranteed for the lifetime of the partnership for a regular fixed payment that includes all elements of the service. As a result, productivity is increased and financial savings are gained.

http://www.pathologyinpractice.com/Story.aspx?Story=417

BTW - I don't believe this is true in all cases.