Operating theatres
Calls to tackle ageing equipment in theatres
Ageing surgical equipment, particularly operating tables, can greatly affect medical outcomes, warns Sam Parry. This article discusses the importance of modernising equipment in the operating theatre and how this can improve efficiency and reduce the risk of downtime.
Last year, a Freedom of Information request found that 4 in 10 NHS hospitals are relying on outdated medical equipment – forcing Trusts to use hard-pressed budgets to fix obsolete equipment.1
Reliance on outdated equipment
can lead to downtime at a time when staff are battling the backlog. It increases maintenance costs, and means that staff and patients are unable to benefit from the latest advances in technology, which can impact patient outcomes and hinder clinical innovation. In short, the reliability of surgical equipment
is pivotal for providing the best patient care and operational efficiency. One area that does not receive enough attention and is often overlooked is the operating table, and yet this is at the centre of all surgical procedures. We know that when an operating table fails, the consequences for patients can be serious.2 Many healthcare facilities, both in the NHS and the private sector, face the onerous challenges posed by ageing operating tables. The consequences of overreliance on obsolete surgical equipment are clear. However, by
modernising operating tables, the industry can enhance efficiency, improve patient care, and achieve significant financial benefits.
The impact of ageing surgical equipment Ageing surgical equipment, particularly operating tables, can greatly affect medical outcomes. When such critical assets fail, a chain reaction can occur inside hospitals. Surgeons and theatre staff are also impacted, as they rely on the functional reliability of operating tables to carry out procedures effectively. Equipment failures can lead to surgical delays or, in many cases, cancellations, causing significant distress to patients and their families. In the United Kingdom alone, cancelling just
five procedures due to equipment issues can result in a potential loss of around £21,000 per day. Such disruptions contribute to the growing backlog of surgeries, placing additional strain on an already overburdened healthcare system. However, these challenges extend beyond the immediate surgical environment. Teams face
increasing pressure to maintain the operational status of ageing equipment, leading to a rise in risk register entries. This diverts valuable resources from other crucial areas and adds to the workload of these essential support teams. As operating tables continue to age and spare parts become a rarity, healthcare facilities struggle to ensure the continuous operation of their surgical theatres. The impact on patient care cannot be
overstated. When surgical procedures are delayed or cancelled due to equipment failures, patients often experience prolonged suffering and anxiety. The psychological toll of uncertainty and the
physical discomfort of untreated conditions can significantly affect their overall wellbeing. In addition, delays in treatment can lead to the deterioration of a patient’s health, potentially resulting in more compound and costly interventions further down the line.
Root causes of equipment obsolescence Several factors contribute to the occurrence of ageing surgical equipment in healthcare facilities. One primary reason is the clear lack of a comprehensive maintenance and replacement plan. Many operating tables, originally designed to last around 12 years, have been pushed well beyond their intended lifespan. Budget constraints and complicated purchasing cycles often result in healthcare organisations using equipment for 20 years or more despite the increasing risk of failure. There is often a communication gap
regarding the lifecycle status of surgical equipment. Inadequate tracking and reporting mechanisms leave theatre teams unaware that a critical asset is quickly approaching its last usage. This lack of visibility hinders proactive decision-making and leaves facilities unprepared for the unforeseen challenges that arise when this equipment inevitably fails. The situation is further compounded by the
September 2024 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 53
t
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
