People may be interested that this draft standard that is in preparation:
BS 70000 Medical physics, clinical engineering and physiological science services in healthcare – Requirements for quality, safety and competence
Go to - http://drafts.bsigroup.com/
Then 'Unclassified Documents'
You have to register to be able to read the document.
Last chance today to look at this document if there is any interest, as the draft will be removed from the site after 28.10.15.
Care to outline the "high-lights" for us?
Is it yet another set of "guidelines", or is some kind of enforcement implied?
Does it promote 62353?
Does it talk about Risk-Based PM (or even mention PM at all)?
Does it mention accreditation of engineers and technicians ("voluntary", or otherwise)?
It does not go into 62353. Without going into copyright issues:
This British Standard specifies requirements for quality, safety and competence in medical physics, clinical engineering and physiological science services in healthcare. It can be used by service providers in developing their quality management systems and assessing the performance of their service and the competence of their staff. It specifies an ethical framework for good practice and research, and development and innovation, including the required roles, responsibilities, activities, facilities and equipment, education and training and competencies that are required for the delivery of such clinical scientific services. This standard can be used for confirming or recognizing the competence of these professional services by service users, regulating authorities and accreditation bodies.
Services for the maintenance of buildings and environmental conditions of healthcare facilities are not covered by this standard, although its main principles can be used to improve the provision of such services.
This standard does not address regulatory or legal requirements.
I fail to see why this standard is actually required as other current standards already cover the same material.
The implications of section 4.1.5 g) 5) is registration would be required so seems a way to drive compulsory registration, which is not surprising as this document is clearly of IPEM origin.
An example of how a standard has been hijacked to promote an addenda, even if with good intentions. There is little evidence this standard will improve the services or safety of those in scope but could increase costs and bureaucracy.
What happens if each function or service in a hospital decided to have their own standard? The NHS is too bureaucratic as it is!
Standards are a bit like ideas, you just pick the one that suits you (or your agenda