BACKLOG MAINTENANCE MODELLING
uncalibrated risk rating (ordinal) scales were compared in a practical situation, using actual ‘Backlog Maintenance’ data from a large NHS Trust, which consisted of approximately 80,000 data points spread across three sites, referenced as sites A, B, & C within this article. For the purposes of the exercise the ratings for the Probability of Failure were accepted as being calibrated, e.g. followed a linear progression, and all associated costs were accepted and unaltered. However, the ratings for Impact 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, were calibrated utilising the crude ratings developed earlier within this document as 0.059, 0.264, 0.597, 2.1, & 5 respectively. The outputs from both the original calibrated and uncalibrated assessments were compared against the calibrated data analysis for the development of a Risk Profile, Financial Profile, and the Rank Reversal issue.
Development of the risk profile Figure 3 shows the comparison between the Risk Profiles developed from the calibrated (brown line) and uncalibrated (blue line) rating (ordinal) scales, and clearly demonstrates the overestimation of assessed risk created from the uncalibrated rating (ordinal) scale when compared with that of the calibrated.
Development of the Financial Profile When this difference between the two rating (ordinal) scales was translated into a cost profile, Tables 5 and 6 were developed.
Table 5 shows the financial profile developed from the uncalibrated rating (ordinal) scales, which suggested that to remove the issues within the significant and high risk zones would require a
Table 5: The Financial Profile assessed from employing the uncalibrated rating (ordinal) scales.
Site A B C Topic
Cond’ Stat’
Cond’ Stat’
Cond’ Stat’
Totals
Low 8.37
2.69 17.52
0.22 0.16
0.03 28.98 Uncalibrated (£ m)
Moderate 9.88
2.38
45.30 2.10
0.05 0.08
59.79
Significant 2.73
22.98 26.16
13.12 0.00
0.06 65.05
Table 6: The Financial Profile assessed from employing the calibrated risk rating scales.
Site A B C Topic Low
Cond’ Stat’
Cond’ Stat’
Cond’ Stat’
Totals
20.96 5.81
83.43 4.92
0.21 0.11
115.44
combined expenditure of £82.79 m (i.e. £65.05 m + £17.74 m). Table 4, meanwhile, shows the financial profile developed by using calibrated scales.
Table 4 recommends that to remove the issues within the significant and high risk zones utilising the calibrated scales would require £34.18 m (i.e. £24.1 m + £10.08 m). Therefore, the difference
Calibrated (£ m)
Moderate 0.37
3.34 7.83
10.34 0.01
0.07 21.94
Significant 0.00
21.20 2.69
0.20 0.00
0.00 24.10
High 0.04
0.01 9.95
0.04 0.03
0.01 10.08
between the calibrated vs. the uncalibrated scales results in an estimated 58% (£48.61 m) reduction in estimated costs to remove the combined significant and high risk zones, from £82.79 m down to £34.18 m. This difference is shown within Figure 4.
It must be noted by the reader that in both the calibrated and uncalibrated
Health Technical Limited offer independent Authorising Engineer (MGPS) services within healthcare facilities
IHEEM Registered AE
Specialists in Medical Gas Services
F19, Kestrel Court Waterwells Drive Quedgeley Gloucester GL2 2AT T: 01452 260800 E:
info@healthtechnical.co.uk W:
www.healthtechnical.co.uk Health Technical Limited
Our services include:
Training - We offer Authorised Person full course, Competent Person full course, Authorised Person Refresher, Competent Person Refresher, Competent Person ‘Essentials’, Train the Trainer, Medical Gas Safety training (for Porters), Medical Gas Safety training (for Nurses), DNO/DMO Medical Gas training, Liquid Nitrogen training and E-learning packages.
Management Audits and Compliance Surveys. Authorised Person Assessments. Authorised Person Cover Services.
Project Management & Commissioning of MGPS Installations.
Operational Policy & Standard Operation Procedures Writing.
May 2019 Health Estate Journal 43
High 0.38
2.31
14.92 0.07
0.03 0.02
17.74
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