EBME Forums Forums Management Medical Equipment Management Service & Repair History

Hi, I've been posed the challenge of weighing up a standard procedure for documenting all repairs carried out during regular service and maintenance.

Purpose being to identify if all remedial work at point of service on a device, should be recorded in the Medical Device Database (MDD) on the Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) or record as a separate/additional repair record if faults are found during inspection or servicing.

What is the general consensus for the two options below, when considering the following;
Faults/failed calibration found during routine maintenance should...

1. all be documented within the PPM job already created in the MDD.
or
2. create a separate repair record to detail specifics of fault found and remedial work carried out, including parts not covered under a regular service. This would then be followed by the completion of the upcoming PPM once repairs are successful.

I have created a Poll to collect views of where either are standard practice.

I welcome any reference materials, links or citations where either are strongly advocated.

Many thanks in advance for your input.

Service & Repair History single choice
	all be documented within the PPM job already created on the Medical Device Database (MDD)
	create a separate repair record to detail specifics of fault found and remedial work carried out, including parts not covered under a regular service. This would then be followed by the completion of the upcoming PPM once repairs are successful.
Votes accepted starting: 27/10/25 11:19 AM
View Results

Although I have ticked your second option, either option could be valid ... it would most likely depend upon the CMMS (database system) being used.

Some systems open a Job for each and every PM when due; so, in such cases, the Job will already be open. At some places I have seen (and/or worked at) the biomeds would close that PM Job, then open another Job (probably later on) when (or sometimes if) parts become available. This has the added benefit of showing fewer "open Jobs" on reports to management or supervisors.

Personally, I always liked to leave any Job open until the equipment was finally returned to service. I used to consider that a more honest approach: that is, one that high-lighted the defects (which were often many) in the "system" ... generally problems in procuring parts and/or other shortcomings of resources. I might add that "management" were not always happy about what usually became quite a long list of "Job open - awaiting parts" lines on the regular reports. Some items remained like that for months (even over a year in one or two cases). Some times a decision had to be taken to scrap the item and purchase a new replacement.

The key issue here is that of the parts required. As you mention, the system may already allow to have specific parts available for the PM procedure. But if the PM "fails" and more parts are needed to effect a repair then a Job record shall be needed sooner or later. Then, as you say, the PM itself can be re-scheduled once the equipment is fully restored.

The secondary point (also as you mention) is that of recording details of faults etc. and action taken. Again, where such notes are made shall depend upon the CMMS being used. Some (older) systems allowed faults, actions etc. to be codified (very useful when analyzing historic data; especially of large data sets).

Normally we designate a team to conduct the PPM,s for a set period of time, any faults that they find they call them in and carry on with the PPM's. Once the equipment has been repaired the PPM team can then finish the procedure. If the PPM team stopped every time a repair was required delays would occur in the schedule.

I take a 3rd, unlisted option.

We have a Jobtype of RepairPPM which is a hybrid job type, negating the need to raise two seperate jobs but triggering the system to advance the NextPPMDue date as necessary.

Generally speaking most equipment should have a full check out and tests post repair.

Hope that helps.

When reporting on location based servicing, which is the method Neil is using also, we scan for two things

PPM Undertaken Count = total of two job types (Location Based PPM, RepairPPM)

Repairs during service visit = total of two job types (Repair + RepairPPM) (Obviously using appropriate date filters)