Hospital Management System Project
Management of Medical Technology – Case Study of a Major Acute Hospital
A.Existing Equipment 1)Major Items Of the total of A$104.6M existing major items, items with a value of A$64.3M required replacement within the 5 year planning period and were subject to prioritisation, while items with a value of A$6.5M did not require replacement as they were either backup units or redundant, were likely to be funded by leasing, or were funded by research grants. Aside from replacement, a further A$6.0M would be required for anticipated upgrades to existing equipment within the 5 year period.
2)Minor Items Using the BME inventory as a complete record of all equipment, each major item was identified in this inventory and removed. This process included identification of all system components and aggregates. The remaining list of equipment therefore consisted of Minor items. The replacement value of this stock of Minor items was determined to be A$26.2M. Assuming an average 10 year life expectancy for this equipment, approximately A$2.62M would be required to allow for ongoing replacement of minor items throughout the hospital each year. https://codeshoppy.com/shop/product/hospital-management-mobile-app/
B.Additional Major Items During interviews with departments, details of equipment required for normal service expansion and growth over the 5 year planning period was collected and prioritised. These results are summarised in Table 3. A number of strategic projects were also underway or anticipated within the 5 year period. These projects were redevelopment of the ICU, the opening of a dedicated day surgery and short stay treatment unit, a proposal for a dedicated neurosurgery operating theatre, a proposal for the introduction of a Tomotherapy unit for Radiotherapy, and the transfer of some currently outsourced medical imaging services to in-house operation. Additional equipment required for these projects was documented but not prioritised since equipment for each project was to be funded from separate budgets.
C.Discussion Many “views” of this data were prepared for the project’s final report. The more significant and revealing views are presented here. Figure 1 shows a pie chart of the existing equipment stock, and illustrates that Major items covered 80% of the total equipment stock by value. The method of dividing the equipment stock at the A$50,000 threshold in this case resulted in detailed planning information being collated for a very large proportion of the equipment stock. Figure 2 shows a histogram of replacement years for the existing major equipment. Items to the left of the current year (2007) were deemed overdue for replacement, and termed “backlog”. To the right of the current year it can be seen that expenditure requirements vary significantly from year to year. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of the existing major equipment stock by equipment category. It can be seen that medical equipment clearly dominates the equipment stock, with approximately 83% of the total value of equipment. However, other categories of equipment are also held in significant amounts. Code Shoppy
Figure 4 shows the existing major equipment stock holdings for each department. Standardised department names have been used to allow grouping of certain department with smaller equipment stocks. For example, the departments of Renal Dialysis, Vascular Laboratory, and Respiratory Medicine, (and others) are all grouped into Specialist Medical Departments. The main equipment stakeholders in the hospital are, not surprisingly, Medical Imaging, Radiotherapy, Operating Theatres, and Pathology. By combining the requirements for a) Routine Replacement of Existing Major Items, b) Planned Upgrades for Existing Major Items, c) Routine Replacement of Existing Minor Items, and d) Acquisition of Additional Major Items, the total expenditure requirements for the hospital for all equipment types for the 5 year planning period amounts to A$112.5M. This excludes additional equipment required for strategic projects, and assumes all equipment will be replaced or acquired as scheduled, and that the existing major equipment backlog is eliminated over this period. An overall equipment budget of approximately A$22.5M per year would therefore be required.
The deliverables for this project consist of the detailed final project report which provides a number of views of the existing major equipment data collated. Such management information provides an understanding of the existing equipment stock and the future outlook when current funding levels are continued. The prioritised equipment lists provide an invaluable starting point for consideration of possible equipment replacement options when funding opportunities arise. The prioritisation process provides an open and transparent method of measuring an item’s importance using a predefined set of criteria. As the data for the report is based on survey work involving identification and documentation of actual equipment items, it provides a convincing argument for the levels of funding required to adequately maintain the equipment stock and allow for normal growth. Such a view is absolutely necessary for the appreciation of the extent of reliance on technology has grown in modern health care facilities.
