Prioritizing equipment for replacement

It is suggested that clinical engineers take the lead in formulating evaluation processes to recommend equipment replacement. Their skill, knowledge, and experience, combined with access to equipment databases, make them a logical choice. Based on ideas from Fennigkoh's scheme, elements such as age, vendor support, accumulated maintenance cost, and function/risk were used.6 Other more subjective criteria such as cost benefits and efficacy of newer technology were not used. The element of downtime was also omitted due to the data element not being available. The resulting Periop Master Equipment List and its rationale was presented to the Perioperative Services Program Council. They deemed the criteria to be robust and provided overwhelming acceptance of the list. It was quickly put to use to estimate required capital funding, justify items already thought to need replacement, and identify high-priority ranked items for replacement. Incorporating prioritization criteria into an existing equipment database would be ideal. Some commercially available systems do have the basic elements of this. Maintaining replacement data can be labor-intensive regardless of the method used. There is usually little time to perform the tasks necessary for prioritizing equipment. However, where appropriate, a clinical engineering department might be able to conduct such an exercise as shown in the following case study.