Global Failure Rate

In Brief Prior studies suggested that the only valid benchmark for clinical engineering (CE) would be the ratio of total CE expenses and total equipment acquisition costs. This article provides data to support the global failure rate (GFR) as a promising benchmark for measuring CE performance. Although GFR appears to work mostly for biomedical equipment, it is an outcome metric that not only measures repair activities but also measures the efforts invested in equipment planning and acquisition, preventive maintenance, user training, and controlling environmental factors. Nonetheless, GFR should not be used alone or in conjunction with financial metrics to assess CE performance. Instead, comprehensive performance tools such as the balanced-scorecard approached should be used to truly evaluate the contribution of CE to a healthcare organization. Prior studies suggested the only valid benchmark for clinical engineering (CE) would be the ratio of total CE expenses and total equipment acquisition costs. This article provides data to support the global failure rate (GFR) as a promising benchmark for measuring CE performance. Although GFR appears to work mostly for biomedical equipment, it is an outcome metric that not only measures repair activities but also efforts invested in equipment planning and acquisition, preventive maintenance, user training, and controlling environmental factors. Nonetheless, GFR should not be use alone or only in conjunction with financial metrics to assess CE performance. Instead, comprehensive performance tools such as the balanced-scorecard approached should be used to truly evaluate the contribution of CE to a healthcare organization.