Prof. Rachel Meyer
CMS and the Controversial Preventative Maintenance Mandate
When I first opened up assignment #2, I noticed the topic was CMS and that was a good thing because I currently work for a medical delivery company that deals with the CMS on a daily basis. This research into their organization would allow me to understand them a little further than what I already know. CMS stand for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services which covers a very large portion of the United States. It covers not only people, but organizations, businesses, etc. Through Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the ...view middle of the document...
They essentially wanted to have one set way of performing PM, so that everyone could be covered to the fullest extent. From my experience in a biomed shop, many of the preventative maintenance (PM) procedures on devices were sometimes unnecessary and carried out in a manner that wasn’t in line with the manufactures directions. This different way of completing the PM was both good and bad and ill explain that in further detail later in the report. Some devices didn’t need the rigorous manufactured PM schedule because some devices either worked or didn’t work. Some biomed shops agreed with their own PM schedules and other followed the manufactures PM schedule very thoroughly. CMS noticed this trend and decided to do something about it.
Because CMS noticed that some of the standard manufacturing PM schedules were not being followed, they issued a directive in December 2012 saying that a biomed shop is to follow the manufactures’ suggested preventative maintenance schedules. (Norville, 2012) That schedule from a manufacturer must be maintained “until a sufficient amount of maintenance history has been acquired to safely adjust the maintenance frequency below that recommended”. (Norville, 2012) Behind the update, CMS stated that, “Equipment that is critical to patient health and safety is not a candidate for an alternative less frequent maintenance activity schedule.” They also included an outline to what devices should be included and in paraphrasing their list it was life-support devices, critical monitoring devices, imaging equipment and anything in which if a device would fail it could result in a serious injury or death for either patients or staff. (Norville, 2012) Essentially, any piece of equipment that could directly affect a patient by injuring or killing them, must follow their specific manufactures orders on their respective PM. The Joint Commission (TJC), which is an organization that accredits and certifies more than 20,500 health care organizations and programs, (The Joint Commission, 2014) had a belief (prior to the mandate) that departments should be able to make their own decisions on PM for non-life support equipment based on their own internal workings. TJC’s stand on this belief contradicted with the CMS, but CMS eventually agreed to recognize TJC’s methods at TJC-accredited organizations. (Jesse & Hyman, 2012) This is where the December mandate came into play and created a standard for all CMS facilities to use the manufactures PM orders on all critical devices.
With the new mandate in place, many aspects of the clinical engineering side of the health care facility have changed. Those impacts can be felt in both the CE department in time management, which also affects the financials because time is money. With the mandates requiring manufacturer standard PM, the general overview is being replaced by a step by step process that will usually take much more time and effort than the “norm”. People often side...