Quantifiable Risk Factors in Medical Equipment Management Program

  • Călin CorciovăEmail author
  • D. Andriţoi
  • C. Luca
  • R. Ciorap
Conference paper
Part of the IFMBE Proceedings book series (IFMBE, volume 71)


The provision of today’s health services depends on a steady increase in the evolution of medical technology. There is no hospital department that has not felt the impact of electronic, mechanical, hydraulic equipment in daily routine. The development of medical technology, the complexity of medical equipment has been rapid, producing a proliferation of growing medical devices. This paper was conducted to provide a comprehensive study evaluating the maintenance and repair program for medical equipment to determine the optimal method for a cost-effective management system and to identify risk factors. When a risk assessment tool is being developed, quantified and implemented, many applications are possible to generate procedure risk monitoring presentations across the institution to implement a technical competence program for biomedical/clinical engineers, technicians and clinicians.


Risk factors Medical equipment assessment Management program Quality guidelines 


Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Atles, L.R.: A Practicum for Biomedical Technology & Management Issues. Kendall-Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, IA (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bagadia, K.: Computerized Maintenance Management Systems Made Easy: How to Evaluate, Select, and Manage CMMS. McGraw-Hill, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corciovă, C., Andriţoi, D., Luca, C., Ciorap, R.: Prioritization of medical devices for maintenance decisions. In: Vlad, S., Roman, N. (eds.) International Conference on Advancements of Medicine and Health Care through Technology; 12–15 Oct 2016, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. IFMBE Proceedings, vol. 59. Springer, Berlin (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baretich, M.: Equipment control and asset management. In: Dyro, J. (ed.) Clinical Engineering Handbook, pp. 122–123. Elsevier, San Diego (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chien, Y.H., Sheu, S.H.: Extended optimal age-replacement policy with minimal repair of a system subject to shocks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 174(1), 169–181 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cockburn, A.: Agile Software Development. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, Massachusetts (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gluch, D.P.: A Construct for Describing Software Development Risks. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA CMU/SEI-94-TR-14Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Backhouse, M., Wonder, M., Hornby, E., Kilburg, A., Drummond, M.F., Mayer, F.K.: Early dialogue between the developers of new technologies and pricing and reimbursement agencies. Value Health 14(4), 608–615 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Busse, F.R., Orvain, J., Velasco, M., Perleth, M., et al.: Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 18, 361–422 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emanuel, E.J., Fuchs, V.R., Garber, A.M.: Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA 298, 1323–1325 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drummond, M.F., Schwartz, J.S., Jönsson, B., Luce, B.R., Neumann, P.J.: Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24(3), 244–258 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neumann, P.J., Drummond, M.F., Jönsson, B., Luce, B.R., Schwartz, J.S., Siebert, U., Sullivan, S.: Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 26(1), 71–78 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drummond, M.F., Neumann, P.J., Jönsson, B., Luce, B.R., Schwartz, J.S., Siebert, U., Sullivan, S.: Can we reliably benchmark health technology assessment organizations? Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 28(2), 159–165 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stamatis, D.H.: Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. FMEA from Theory to Execution, 2nd edn. American Society for Quality, Quality Press, Milwaukee (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guidelines for Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for Medical Devices. Dyadem Press, Ontario, Canada (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Călin Corciovă
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. Andriţoi
    • 1
  • C. Luca
    • 1
  • R. Ciorap
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomedical Sciences DepartmentUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa”IasiRomania

Personalised recommendations