Case study presents an objective scoring system for replacing medical equipment in health care services.
Currently, one of the most challenging decisions in the management of medical equipment is the replacement of a device, given the limited nature of financial resources. Many replacement decision-making processes occur reactively, considering factors related to the age of the device, a malfunction, or solely subjective criteria, which can result in acquisitions that are not aligned with the actual needs of the health care service. These services must have appropriately sized and reliable equipment to ensure the quality and safety of health care professionals in patient care, as well as the optimization of resources for the institution. Therefore, it is essential to seek tools capable of facilitating and systematizing the process of selection and prioritization of medical equipment replacement, amidst other external demands. Thus, a model called the “iSUB Methodology (Replacement Index)” was developed, which formulates several objective variables derived from most asset management software systems. This is a case study describing the tool used for the study of medical equipment replacement in a federal university hospital. The “iSUB Methodology” tool utilizes the parameters of age, failure rate, maintenance cost, and equipment severity—through a matrix scoring system, producing results on a scale from 0 to 10. The result is a ranked, nonexhaustive list of devices that need to be replaced. This methodology can be adopted by any health care service that manages its medical equipment inventory through an information system and possesses data on the variables used in the model. The model enables clinical engineers and the ones responsible for managing medical equipment to make more accurate decisions regarding the renewal of them, based on clear and objective evidence, classifying and identifying technologies with the highest potential for replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vivas et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: