EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management Assessing EBME dept competence

OK, let's play "tick the boxes", shall we? For convenience and clarity, I'll use the terminology "client" and "contractor":-

Contractor must have:-

1 [ ] Competent technicians able to carry out the work
2 [ ] Public liability insurance
3 [ ] "Quality System" certification (eg, ISO whatever)
4 [ ] Appropriate tools and test equipment
5 [ ] All test equipment calibrated and within date
6 [ ] Recent training certs for all equipment on "the list"

1 - tick
2 - tick
3 - why? It's the client who should have a QA system in place (and the contractor should be obliged to follow that)
4 - tick
5 - tick
6 - may not be possible for all equipment (some of which may be basic anyway)

Perhaps we're talking about a list of kit that any biomed worth his salt should be competent to work through. That's why I asked earlier:- "What sort of equipment are we talking about here"?

However, as I've mentioned before, the client can add as many requirements and conditions as he sees fit. But each one will end up costing him more.

And (at the famous "end of the day") he will probably end up with the same blokes doing the work, anyway.

Generally speaking, I don't think it's any great secret that contractors will agree to "anything" as long as the price is right. They carry the risk.

Also, if there is still lingering doubt about capability etc. ... why not simply follow that age-old method of seeking references from previous happy clients?

But to my mind all that is just so much guff. As I said before, what really matters is the condition of the kit!

Where's Russ? He's not been back since the 3rd.

sorry, I took a break! Thanks for the many replies, I didn't expect the thread still to be going. I did bookmark but only just had a chance to have a look.

You are right in that, any spec should be agreed prior to going to market and with contractor input (with contractor generally being external EBME departments). We will be doing so, although some useful points on here about auditing and 'proving competence'. We will ask for the PCA as a good starting point. I think we would leave a spec broadly based for technical competence, as like has been pointed out, there are a variety of ways competence could be proven - can then assess the EBME provider's response on how they will evidence it, and then build this into any final contract.

On the original CQC requirements we have records of engineer training and have spent the last month collating manufacturer recommendations on servicing frequencies, to monitor more closely going forwards, and with PCA we should be covered.

As for equipment range - we run community health services, with a few bedded units in some hospitals. Most of the equipment is fairly low risk when compared to acute trusts etc, although it ranges from audiology testing equipment to bed frames, sphygometers, glucometers, treadmills, etc..

This is a logical way of going about things, especially for a small dependency (inventory). But it assumes that you have access to relevant service manuals (so you may need to get hold of them):-

1) Get someone to go through each manual to establish the PVP* for every type of equipment (that is, the manufacturers' recommendations)

2) Make up a binder containing those procedures and make a note of the quantity of each equipment type

3) Issue this information as an Addendum to the contract bid document

4) Have the Contractor confirm that he is able to carry out those procedures (and that, ultimately, he actually does)

That way you have something tangible to base your requirements (and subsequent monitoring) on, and the Contractor will know what's expected of him right from the onset.

Note as well that those procedures may also indicate what test equipment is needed to carry them out.

If your requirement is for real PM (that is, actual servicing rather than just "checking") ... then follow a similar process but ascertain the PM procedures instead. But be aware that this will probably involve the fitting of parts, and that will be an extra expense for you. So, using your binder of procedures, you will need to decide whether you will purchase the parts (and have the Contractor fit them), or leave it to the Contractor to do so (and then bill you ... unless both parties agree to a "including parts" deal).

For the Contractor, it will all be down to the time that he is committing to. And, as we all know, Time is Money!

* Performance Verification Procedure (rather than PM Procedure - as the later should include calibration and adjustment, and replacement of "lifed" parts as well as performance checks).

We managed to get user manuals (some details servicing requirements) but haven't got the service manuals. Oh well.. will have to stipulate service provider to source those, they will no doubt have a headstart on us in that regards.

Time is money, but I think we have enough to cover what we would be demanding

When we purchase anything now, it is our first words 'do you supply technical training and service manuals'. 'We want them added into the deal if you do, as well as all specialist test equipment'. Failure to comply means they get binned from the suppliers unless the ward want to take on the service contract and we have nothing to do with the equipment.

Don't all departments follow such a policy, then?