EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management Assessing EBME dept competence

Hello

Speaking from a contracting perspective, we are reviewing our current EBME provider and were wondering what would be the best approach for assessing their competence in servicing the hundreds of items they service for us each year. I have read some of the threads on here and it seems different EBME departments operate in different ways. We are playing catch up, I would assume normally that when purchasing new equipment we would check then (thrashing out those details internally). Should we just ask for a declaration from EBME departments for each item, or see some kind of credentials?

Thanks

Russ

"Reviewing your current EBME provider". NHS, or private? When you say "EBME" provider, are we to assume that you're referring to repair and maintenance services in-house and/or on-site? Are you using a third-party company to do this?

Are these people carrying out PM, or just a "repair as necessary" function?

If PM? On they on top of the schedule (most important, in my view)?

How to assess? How about calling in an independent outsider to do that for you?

Or are you talking about going out to tender for biomed engineering services?

If so, the key is in the amount of effort (thought, as well) put into the Request for Proposal.

That is, you decide what you want, and get it clearly drafted into the RFP.

If you want kit PM'd twice a year, then that's what you put in. If you want to reserve the right to impose financial penalties for poor performance (all of which must be clearly defined), then in that goes as well ... etc., etc.

The bottom line is:- you are (or should be) in the driver's seat! That is, you tell them what you want, rather than having to put up with them saying "this is what you're getting".

Hi Geoff - sorry for delay in replying!

It is an NHS EBME dept servicing equipment for us, another smaller NHS body. We need to have stuff serviced to the correct frequency, and working on establishing a complete inventory with these on. But in the meanwhile, I was wondering how we assure ourselves that the engineer they use currently is competent to service all equipment he's asked to. We do have the contract up towards the end of this year - currently its a single sheet of paper so totally inadequate - so will be devising a specification for services we expect any future provider to meet. It's more in the meanwhile, how we can assure CQC for example that the current lot are competent (and I am sure they are 95% of the time).

Unless something has cropped up to throw some doubt on things, why worry?

You'll only end up with a file full of bits of paper "proving" this or that (or nothing at all, more like).

What matters (as always) is the state (the condition) of the kit itself. If it's all fully serviceable, and any faults etc. get dealt with efficiently ... what's the problem?

But "a single sheet of paper"? Can I bung in a bid next time?

Things have changed - we are assessed under CQC judgement framework towards the end of the year. We need to evidence its all maintained correctly (erm, outcome 11?) (ie to manufacturers recommendations) and by technically competent individuals. I am sure they are competent, but the point is how we evidence it. It may mean a file with bits of paper, but needs to be done. It may even be an outline on how they monitor their engineers abilities ie rate of failures, revisits etc, but at the moment we could not show them anything..

We have had a few incidences eg phoning for a new piece of equipment and engineer saying he needs to find out more about it, which hasnt been that reassuring.

We will be asking how they can provide evidence, but was wondering what would be the generally accepted approach. I am sure anyone who runs an EBME department at an acute has had to consider this already under CQC assessments, let alone their own QA processes.

And apologies but wasnt too clear in first post, but we need to consider ongoing checks if/when we award contract elsewhere and what we should be looking for.

It is usually difficult (not to mention unfair) to apply new conditions to a contract retrospectively.

I would have thought that the best way forward is to simply write any new requirements into the next contract.

All that extra stuff will end up costing you more, of course, especially if the contractor needs to be worrying about protecting himself the whole time.

As I say, what matters is the condition of the kit. If you can't judge that for yourself, then you may need to consider calling in a third party to examine it (spot checks, whatever) on your behalf. More expense!

What sort of equipment are we talking about here, by the way?

Meanwhile, the fact that a tech had to check up on something or other sounds to me like a good sign. Honesty, due diligence etc. ... rather than simply bluffing his way through!


Show them the kit itself! And if they know what it is they are are looking at, and it's in good shape, then it's Game, Set, and Match!

Showing them the kit wont be sufficient, I am 99.99% confident on that, but thank you. I think we will ask them to prove competence to us if there's no standard approach, and then think about a third party inspection to ensure stuff has been done adequately, that's a good idea and helps to ensure we don't just rely on the trust we currently work on.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

There's no need to check it all. Random checks are usually sufficient to keep the workers on their toes!

Who was it who said that "policy without inspection is just an exercise in wishful thinking"? Oh well, perhaps it was me.

It's (yet) another area where I feel the NHS is a bit lacking. If folk want QA (and why not?), then why not just have the blokes come across from Hospital A to check out the kit at Hospital J (Hospital B being too close to A, if you see what I'm saying). A nice week out for the inspectors ... who had better watch out when the situation is reversed.

By the way, the army was using that approach to my certain knowledge forty years ago! As usual, the simple solutions are the best.

Hi Russ

Who's to say that the inspectors are qualified and up to play with all current legislation?
Proves to be quite an interesting point in the land of the white cloud.

Regards