Healthcare facilities maintenance management: a literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The complexity and criticality of healthcare services highlight the importance of maintenance management function in healthcare facilities. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on maintenance management of healthcare facilities and hospital buildings to provide an organized literature review and identify gaps from the perspective of research and practice. Design/methodology/approach The paper categorizes the literature and adopts a review hierarchy according to maintenance management functions in hospital buildings. It explores the impact of those functions on the performance of maintenance activities in hospitals. Furthermore, it examines the role of information technology and automated decision support systems in facilitating hospital maintenance management functions and performance. Findings Literature on maintenance management in healthcare facilities and hospital buildings has so far been very limited. Recently published literature focusing on healthcare facilities management and its maintenance management functions is classified into various areas and sub-areas. The paper highlights gaps in the literature and suggests avenues for future research and improvements. Originality/value The paper contains a comprehensive listing of publications and their classifications according to various attributes. It will be useful for researchers, maintenance managers, practitioners and stakeholders concerned with facility management of hospital buildings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it