ELECTRICAL SAFETY


Case example – why proactive monitoring matters A modern insulation monitoring system, when combined with PE conductor continuity monitoring, maximises the safety of critical Group 2 premises. While international standards mandate insulation monitoring, continuity monitoring of the PE conductor is not yet a compulsory requirement; it is, however, a recommended practice. Nevertheless, it provides a significant additional safeguard, ensuring that equipment remains grounded correctly in the event of faults or power interruptions. Such cases underline why combining mandatory and recommended monitoring functions is the most effective way to safeguard patients, staff, and critical medical equipment.


The Superhumans Centre in Lviv, Ukraine.


medical IT systems. Several new hospitals have also begun implementing initial verification as per the 2023 NEC, ensuring that errors are corrected before installations are placed into service. This represents a positive step, although there is still a long way to go before full compliance and best practice become the norm across the country.


Ukraine – hospitals under extreme pressure Contributed by Dmitry Horbatchov, CEO, and Tatyana Horbatchov, technical director, LLC PKF Industrial Technologies, Kharkiv. We are grateful for their valuable insights and continued commitment to improving hospital safety under exceptionally difficult circumstances.


Timo Ohtonen


Timo Ohtonen is the managing director and owner of the Finnish health technology company PPO- Elektroniikka Oy, which he co-founded in 1981. Together with his team, he has developed five generations of the MEV Insulation Monitoring System. The company specialises in insulation monitoring solutions for Group 2 medical locations in hospitals. Timo and his team have extensive experience in safety electronics and electrical safety. PPO-Elektroniikka Oy is a member of the Association of Finnish Hospital Engineering.


In the 2010s, Ukraine had already begun to modernise its hospital infrastructure. Regulatory reforms introduced after 2015 aimed to align national practices with European standards. In new construction and renovation projects, operating theatres were increasingly designed with isolated power supply (IT) systems, isolation transformers and insulation monitoring devices, creating a foundation for safer Group 2 medical environments. The full-scale invasion in February 2022, however, significantly changed the situation. Before 2022, approximately 720 hospitals were operational in Ukraine. By April 2023, this number had dropped to 450, and the situation has since further deteriorated. Hospitals have been forced to operate amid prolonged power outages and physical threats. In many cases, operating theatres and intensive care units have been relocated to underground shelters. The continuity of electricity supply is maintained through generators and automatic transfer switches, while temporary solutions are employed to secure vital equipment. Despite these challenges, progress has not stopped.


With international support, new hospitals and facilities continue to be built, applying European standards wherever possible. However, the contrast is striking: alongside modern installations, many hospitals still rely on outdated systems, and the overall level of electrical safety remains uneven. The Ukrainian experience is a reminder that healthcare


infrastructure must be prepared not only for everyday risks but also for exceptional disruptions. Ensuring resilient and modern Group 2 installations is therefore not only a technical requirement but also a safeguard for maintaining critical medical services under extreme conditions.


30 Health Estate Journal May 2026


Practical case illustrating the importance of this combined approach In an OT, a fault developed in a socket line with four ceiling outlets. Due to insufficient strain relief, the cables at one outlet shifted and came into contact with each other, resulting in deterioration of the insulation. The IMD detected the fault immediately and triggered both a visual and an audible alarm. Because the system also monitored PE conductor continuity, the technical staff could verify that protective grounding remained intact, even under fault conditions. Thanks to this early and comprehensive warning, the


staff intervened before the fault escalated. There was no risk to patients or clinical personnel, and valuable medical equipment remained protected. Moreover, the incident demonstrated how such systems can also help to prevent dangerous electrical fires.


Summary The examples presented in this article confirm that progress in electrical safety for Group 2 medical facilities is moving forward worldwide. From India’s systematic improvements to Ukraine’s resilience under extreme conditions, awareness is increasing, and modern solutions are gradually being implemented. Similar insights from colleagues in Europe and Asia further underline that this is a truly global effort. India demonstrates that progress requires not only regulations but also the active involvement of professionals from different disciplines. Collaboration, regular communication across multiple channels, and continuous research have been crucial in driving change and ensuring that knowledge is widely disseminated within the healthcare sector. However, the picture is not without challenges. Even in


Europe, where strict standards exist, implementation is not always consistent, and gaps remain. Standards provide an essential framework, but they must be accompanied by effective enforcement, adequate investment and ongoing professional development. The way ahead is clear: we must continue to raise awareness, support research, and strengthen the competence of healthcare engineers and technical staff. Sharing knowledge and best practices across borders is vital. Only then can we ensure that the invisible hazard of electricity is reliably controlled, securing safe and resilient healthcare environments for the future. This requires not only compliance with standards, but also continuous commitment from healthcare organisations and technical professionals.


Acknowledgement n This article – appearing here in revised and updated form – originally appeared in IFHE Digest 2026.


Tatiana Horbatchov


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80