Observational assessment reveals variable standards compliance across medical gas pipeline domains in a tertiary hospital, indicating safety vulnerabilities in plant location and cylinder storage.
Background: The medical gas pipeline system (MGPS) supplies medical gases to patient care areas within hospitals. Assessment of MGPS against established engineering standards is required for safe and reliable operation. This study evaluated the MGPS of a tertiary care teaching hospital using criteria from the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) General Specifications for MGPS (2022) and the UK Health Technical Memorandum (HTM 02-01) standards. Methodology: This study, conducted over 2 months, is an observational assessment of MGPS components, including the Oxygen Generation Plant (OGP), manifold rooms, and cylinder storage areas. A 43-item checklist, developed from the CPWD (2022) and HTM 02-01 standards, was used. Each item was scored as compliant or noncompliant and domain-wise compliance percentages were calculated. Results: Compliance varied across the eight domains assessed. Higher compliance was noted in the pipeline distribution system (83.3%), alarm systems and monitoring (80.0%), and maintenance documentation (80.0%). Lower compliance was observed in OGP and plant room infrastructure (33.3%), cylinder storage and handling (50.0%), and safety signage (50.0%). Deviations included OGP placement within the hospital block, unsecured cylinders, storage near heat sources, and missing safety signage. Conclusion: The assessment identified variability in MGPS compliance across different functional domains. Addressing deviations in plant location, storage practices, signage, and operational behaviors is necessary to support safer system operation. Regular structured assessments using standard guidelines may facilitate the early identification of gaps and improve MGPS safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: