Assessment of medical equipment maintenance management: proposed checklist using Iranian experience

Morteza Arab‐Zozani, Ali Imani, Leila Doshmangir, Koustuv Dalal, Rona Bahreini

BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 2021

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1186/s12938-021-00885-5
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Effective maintenance management of medical equipment is one of the major issues for quality of care, for providing cost-effective health services and for saving scarce resources. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive checklist for assessing the medical equipment maintenance management (MEMM) in the Iranian hospitals. METHODS: This is a multi-methods study. First, data related to factors which affect the assessment of MEMM were collected through a systematic review in PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Embase, and web of science without any time limitation until October 2015, updated in June 2017. Then, we investigated these factors affecting using document review and interviews with experts in the Iranian hospitals. In the end, the results of the first and second stages were combined using content analysis and the final checklist was developed in a two-round Delphi. RESULTS: Using a combination of factors extracted from the systematic and qualitative studies, the primary checklist was developed in the form of assessment checklists in seven dimensions. The final checklist includes 7 dimensions and 19 sub-categories: "resources = 3," "quality control = 3," "information bank = 4," "education = 1," "service = 3," "inspection and preventive maintenance = 2" and "design and implementation = 3." CONCLUSIONS: Developing an assessment checklist for MEMM provide a comprehensive framework for the proper implementation of accurate assessment of medical equipment maintenance. This checklist can be used to improve the profitability of health facilities and the reliability of medical equipment. In addition, it is implicated in the decision-making in support of selection, purchase, repair and maintenance of medical equipment, especially for capital equipment managers and medical engineers in hospitals and also for the assessment of this process.