EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management New PPM ?

http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecms%2Egov%2FSurveycertificationgeninfo%2Fdownloads%2FSCLetter12_07%2Epdf&urlhash=4cIt&_t=tracking_anet

What's that, Neil, clear guidance?

Can't see stuff like that catching on here, Mate. After all, here in the UK we much prefer just to "muddle through".

Interesting to note that "alternative strategies" for PM are being openly discussed (unlike on this forum, where threads talking about similar issues have been known to get "locked").

PM's should be discussed, it is impossible not to change, technology has come on in leaps and bounds since pm's were introduced. Reliability is a major issue as newer equipment tends to breakdown more often than their older counterparts and a lot of the 'high-end' technology appears to suffer just at the sight of the electrical safety analyzer. Why pm if you can monitor the equipment from the workshop?

The reason threads on this forum get locked or deleted is nearly always because of you Geoff.

You go so ridiculously off-topic (or annoy enough people), that I have to take action.

Stick to the topic and it won't happen.

Yes, Sir!

My New Year's Wish is to see many more interesting threads opened by those who we may call (as indeed we already have) the "Fresh Audience".

I encourage all new members to post away ... and I promise not to respond myself, unless invited ... so let there be no more pathetic excuses for not posting!

OK ... stand back and wait ... ...

Have you forgotten what real PM involves, then, Neil?

I recommend spending a day or two each week back on the tools, Mate. It's good for the soul, you know.

Clear guidance yes! just downloaded 'Risk Criteria-based Priority and Prudent PM Interval Table' there are 3 columns for intervals, Prudent PM, ECRI PM and ASHE PM and in many cases they give different interval times. This table is sorted by Function, Application, Maintenance, History, Risk Criteria and Priority Level. So why should 3 bodies have different results. Bet you could find a lot of discrepancies between the different healthcare institutes in the UK. My question is "why can we not have a universal PM based on the manufacturers recommendations after all they built the thing"

Only three? I reckon we can do better than that!

In answer to the question you pose:- "because the kit is used in differing environments"!

Sometimes heavily used (or perhaps abused), sometimes kept in a cupboard the whole time. Sometimes operated by folk with nous ... sometimes not. Sometimes kept clean, sometimes left filty ... etc., etc.

So the manufacturers recommendations are simply a prudent (we hope) guide based upon what they see as typical use and conditions.

In my opinion, the biomed on the scene is best placed to judge what level of PM is required. And interval is not the only criteria. Some folk could probably manage to look at kit every 180 days (say) ... but what are they going to actually do?

I would interested in taking a look at that document you mention though, Neil.

"Prudent PM"? That's a new one on me. But I kind of like the ring of it.

Source.

To continue ...

I have noticed these days that some biomed CMMS and, indeed, some automated test equipment protocols include an "AEM" field (or sometimes, flag).

In short, AEM ("Alternative* Equipment Maintenance") appears to refer to a (down-graded?) Maintenance Procedure that does not follow - deviates from - the "official" (manufacturer's, in the main) Procedure.

And the "AEM Programme" is one that reviews an equipment inventory to assert which non-critical items qualify for AEM ... then assigns and implements the AEM Procedures. All this is aimed at more efficient use of biomed resources (aka less time being wasted; and (or) being able to actually get through the PM schedule).

To be honest, this sounds like something I have been doing all my life! I liked to use the phrase "equal to, or better than" (...the manufacturer's procedures or guidelines). Can I really have been that far ahead of the curve?

It's been a long time coming, but it's nice to see some common sense being "allowed" - in the USA, at least. Surely it's just another step in the evolution of biomed I/PM (Inspections and Preventive Maintenance) - Evidence-Based, Risk-Based ... and all other such good stuff? Has anyone on here looked into this?

Here are some links:-

1) 24x7; see the some nice comments by "old school" biomeds at the bottom of the page.
2) AAMI; see the top .pdf by Ridgway et al - also the CMS "Memo".

* Sometimes seen as:- "Alternate".