Development of a Standard of Practice for Medical Device Preventive Maintenance in BC Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the process to establish a recommended minimum standard of practice for medical device preventive maintenance (PM) and performance assurance (PA) inspections in B.C. hospitals. This is a project embarked by the Clinical Engineering Committee of B.C. (CECBC) in 2003/04 to assist biomedical engineering departments to assess their medical device PM/PA requirements. A simple ranking system based on risk and utilization of each type of medical device was developed as a first level criterion to determine PM/PA requirements. Based on this ranking system, each hospital region then reviewed their list of medical devices and assigned their own ranking scores and PM/PA intervals. The scores and intervals were reviewed by the CECBC to arrive at a consensus of the minimum mandatory and recommended PM/PA interval for each of the common device types. The result for this exercise is included in this paper. In addition, a list of essential PM/PA procedures for each device type is being developed as part of this project.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.137 | 0.194 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".