MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414612844 · doi:10.38124/ijisrt/25sep1147

Adapting ISO 55000 Principles for Healthcare: A Case Study on CT Scanner Life Cycle Management in a Quebec Public Hospital

2025· article· en· W4414612844 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruno Houessou, Mickaël Gardoni, Michel Rioux

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic hospitalBridging (networking)Health careAsset (computer security)Corporate governanceQuality managementAsset managementQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare organizations are under growing pressure to optimize resources, extend the useful life of critical medical assets, and maintain uncompromised levels of patient safety. Biomedical assets such as CT scanners are central to diagnosis and treatment, yet their management often lacks strategic alignment with organizational objectives. This study explores the contextual application of ISO 55000 asset management principles in hospital settings. An intrinsic case study was conducted in a Quebec public hospital, focusing on the life cycle of a 128-slice CT scanner. Using qualitative content analysis of procurement, service, and quality documentation, the study identified three paradigmatic modulators—organizational, clinical, and financial—that mediate the translation of ISO 55000 principles into healthcare contexts. Results indicate that while ISO 55000 is highly relevant, its concepts must be adapted to account for collaborative governance structures, the primacy of patient safety, and mission-driven financing. The findings contribute to bridging the gap between industrial asset management theory and healthcare practice, offering a hybrid framework for hospitals seeking sustainable biomedical equipment management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207