EBME Forums Forums Maintenance Technical Assistance Recording,Storing and Analysing Electrical Safety

Good point Ed, many people won't have visited the site over the holidays. (Curiously though, we averaged 10,000 hits per day on 25/26 December.)

Regarding placing the poll in a more prominent place, I'm not sure how we'd go about doing this. (Perhaps creating it's own thread?)

Our old voting system used to place a survey on the home page - it looked something like this...

---

Saving EST Results

Yes, with hindsight, perhaps another couple of weeks might have been better. Or even an open poll ... one that lasts for ever. Perhaps Huw (with his super-powers) could go back and change the cut-off date and time (I can't).

Yes, these polls do tend to become hidden away after a while (hence the cut-off). But an important survey? No, I don't think so (and the results so far have already confirmed my own opinions). "B", "C", etc. might be a bit more interesting, if we get that far.

Notice, though, that my earlier version allowed more than one choice to be made.

And how come people are off work all that time? I thought hospitals were 24x7 operations!

So, what are we doing now ... starting again? Meanwhile, I would urge anyone tuning in to vote at the 24-Dec poll (if they haven't already done so). We've only seen 16 votes so far.

Well its interesting to me as I always like to know the "General Consensus" on these matters!

Ed

Interesting, yes. Important, no.

And, based upon my experiences of seeking the consensus (on this forum) on a whole host of issues over the last five years, I'm afraid it's a question of "don't hold your breath" (still only 16 votes).

Meanwhile, 25 years ago I received some advice that I still recall from a bloke who was based at your very hospital at the time:-

"I've found that the best policy is to attempt to implement good, sensible standards and logical procedures; but if "someone upstairs" decides otherwise (or, for that matter, is indecisive) - accept it; it's not worth getting intense and frustrated. Just document what is necessary, and if it's politic at a later date to throw it back at them - do it (in the nicest possible way)!"

I've always taken that to mean that it's best to adopt your own policies and procedures, based upon what you believe to be right, rather than sink to the common denominator of the status quo. That ideal has gotten me "into trouble" more than a few times (as may well be imagined), but my conscience is clear. Who cares what idiots think? I always did what I thought was right, was generally vindicated, and sometimes even thanked (albeit rather grudgingly) later on (... sometimes many years later)!

A couple of the regular visitors to this forum will probably even be able to guess whose "Rule" that was, I should imagine. Let's see.

Were you one of the sheep then Geoff ?? That the Good Shepard looked over ??

It was indeed "Shephard's Rule" ... although when I reminded Peter of it recently, he claimed not to know what I was on about!

No, Mate ... you know me ... I've always tended to "paddle my own canoe", as opposed to "rolling with the flow"! Never have been "one of the common herd" (flock), and I don't see that changing now, not at my stage of the game. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why I'm far from being a rich man!

Meanwhile, there's still only 19 votes cast at the 24-Dec poll on page 4!

More than two years later, I reckon that this thread still makes interesting reading, and I commend it to one and all!

I notice also that the poll is still open, if anyone wants to have a go.

Having just gone through it all again, a number of points emerge as far as I'm concerned:-

1) Now that the UK is blessed with more lawyers than police officers, I can see that what we might call the "Dowman Model" (that is, "trust the technician") may no longer really cut the mustard. And so some sort of record taking is probably a good idea.

2) I like Marcel's approach (about recorded result values demonstrating that the thing was actually plugged in and powered up, etc.).

3) I also agree with Mike about ultrasound probes. But would probably draw the line there when it comes to comparison with previous values. As has been pointed out, simply swapping a mains cable, using a different tester, or having the tester re-calibrated (since the previous test) actually compromises any ideas about "trend analysis".

4) If any results look a bit high, then they should by all means be investigated. Otherwise it passes. But on the other hand, as I myself have said, if it fails, it fails. And I tend to edge towards the heroic stance taken by my Old Mate Mark of Taunton!

5) But no-one has (to my mind, at least) yet spilled the beans about what form these computer results files take, and (more importantly) how are they accessed again should anyone ever feel the need to take a look at them. OK, some (many) are probably plain ASCII files (CSV most likely), but some look like modern weirdness to me (that is, esoteric, or proprietary file formats).

6) The bottom line seems to be that recording a sub-set of EST results should be seen as a "good thing" (especially to "prove" - but does it? - that some sort of tests were indeed carried out).

7) OK, downloading (transferring, whatever) results from an automatic tester to the PC may only take less that fifteen minutes a week. But what about the techs who only have a good old Rigel 233 (or some such "manual" tester) at their disposal? Don't tell me, they have to fill in those old Rigel test sheets* and/or manually enter all those results (including the odd typo, no doubt) into the computer by hand!

8) I guess I shall have to think about which of the many results (which may be generated by an automatic tester) are the ones to be included in a valid sub-set of data for recording, storing and analysis (the last of which, in my expectation, is never likely to happen)!

About "proving":- I would suggest that any reasonably minded person would concede that records yet retained inside an automatic tester proves that a test was actually carried out, on the date given, together with results obtained. But once that data has been transferred to a PC, it can be "got at" (edited, added to, deleted even) can it not?

For the sake of completeness, kindly allow me to link in to this thread as well.

* Rigel Ref. 233-853 ... I happen to have one here. There are 36 boxes if you wanted to fill them all in. Almost as many as the Census form (but even most of those were just ticks)!

According to IEC 62353 the following should be recorded:

– identification of the testing body (e.g. company, department);
– name of the person(s) who has/have performed the testing and the evaluation(s);
– identification of the equipment/system (e.g. type, serial number, inventory number) and the ACCESSORIES tested;
– tests and measurements;
– date, type and outcome / results of
• visual INSPECTIONS;
• measurements (measured values, measuring method, measuring equipment);
• functional testing according to 5.4;
– concluding evaluation;
– date and confirmation of the individual who performed the evaluation

Since the 62353 standard is the one the HSE would most likely use in any prosecution then this data would seem to be the minimum required. Since the actual number of tests that produce a measured value is only 3 or 4 the data burden, even if it has to be manually entered, is far less than any 60601 test data. So in a standard database form (or even a pre-printed sheet) will, in most cases, require 3 values to be entered and a few tick boxes to be completed.

Thanks for that information. Two quick comments, if I may:-

1) Accessories? Where do we draw the line? Are we supposed to be asset tagging ECG leads (as well as mains cables) now, then? If not, how can they be identified? And/or what use are the results in "proving" what set up was actually tested:- mains cable - EUT - patient cables etc.?

2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that IEC-62353 has been "officially sanctioned" in the UK (yet).

Plus a couple more (following a cup of tea):-

1) The thought occurs that anyone adopting 62353 is likely to be using a modern tester, and so all that record keeping should be taken care of. That is, stored within the tester itself, then downloaded (transferred) to the PC, for viewing (if need be) not by whichever "equipment database" is being used, but by the software provided with (or available for) the tester!

2) When testing to 62353, won't the "record" also need to note which method was employed for the leakage tests (direct, differential, or alternative)? OK ... I see that you indeed mentioned "measuring method" above (and presume that this what that means).