PEER REVIEW PAPER

Abstract

To be accredited, every healthcare organization is required by JCAHO to determine which equipment should be included in its medical equipment management plan. Traditionally, most organizations have adopted the equipment inclusion criteria proposed by Fennigkoh and Smith (1989). This classic interpretation of JCAHO standard uses three criteria (equipment function, physical risks, and maintenance requirements) to establish a numerical value, called the equipment management (EM) number. Only equipment with an EM value higher than a predetermined threshold is included in the management plan. A fourth criterion (incident history) can be used to modify the EM number if data are available. If followed literally, this interpretation can lead to confusion and, occasionally, unreasonable conclusions that might result in inefficiencies and potentially unsafe conditions. A new interpretation of the inclusion criteria is proposed here. The major difference is in reinterpreting the equipment-function criterion as the equipment's importance within the organization's global mission. This helps to balance risk to a single patient with the organization's commitment to its entire community. An additional factor that should be considered is the equipment utilization rate; heavily used items require more frequent inspection and higher priority for repairs. Together, these two elements form an interpretation that is more attuned to JCAHO's new directive (and general business management principles) and encourages greater concurrence with the organization's mission and vision.