by
Loren Bonner, DOTmed News Online Editor | May 29, 2014
From the May 2014 issue of HealthCare Business News magazine
The Joint Commission fully supports the new CMS directive, even the exceptions.
“Because imaging/radiologic and medical laser devices typically are serviced according to manufacturers’ recommendations, the Joint Commission agrees with exception language,” says George Mills, the Joint Commission’s director of engineering.
He says he doesn’t anticipate that the exception for imaging equipment will be an issue. Others see a different scenario. “The general reaction from the field, from my observation, is a sense of frustration with that distinction,” says Karen Waninger, director of clinical engineering at Community Hospitals Indianapolis.
While Waninger can’t speak for everyone, she brings up a few problems she has with the distinction. In many ways, she doesn’t see it being that necessary because if there is evidence to indicate the need for specific maintenance activities on any device, the AEM program will certainly include those activities regardless of what the manufacturer recommends.
Further, she said she can cite specific examples where the manufacturer’s recommended procedures couldn’t be performed due to revisions and updates that the manufacturer made to the equipment, without making corresponding updates to the procedures.
“Therefore I must ask the question, what is expected of whom in those instances? I believe many members of the HTM profession have similar experiences. What we lack is the political clout to offset the messages of the large organizations who see it to their advantage to have imaging equipment excluded from the AEM process,” she said.
The exception applies to all imaging equipment, even for modalities such as ultrasound that don’t emit harmful radiation.
Gaev said he can understand the concern around radiation-emitting equipment and erring on the side of safety by following manufacturer’s recommendations. But he doesn’t understand the need to include ultrasound and MRI because radiation is not a factor.
“I believe that manufacturers are responsible people who want to bring safe equipment to the marketplace, however, there is no law, rule or regulation to my knowledge that requires manufacturers of imaging equipment or lasers to submit any data to any agency that demonstrates their inspection and preventative maintenance frequencies are the appropriate ones,” says Gaev.
Supporters of AEM programs also say that the established protocol of allowing maintainers of equipment to deviate from these recommendations by utilizing evidence-based maintenance schedules has never resulted in an adverse event.
