BUILDING MAINTENANCE
extends asset life, and reduces the need for emergency interventions. Therefore, the higher the percentage of preventive maintenance performed, the lower the likelihood of unexpected failures in critical environments such as ICUs and surgical centres.
Operational efficiency From an operational efficiency perspective, PPMP allows managers to measure how well the team is following established maintenance plans. A low percentage of preventive execution may indicate staffing issues, planning flaws, or an overload of corrective maintenance. A high percentage indicates greater maintenance management maturity , with efficient planning, adequate schedule control, and effective integration between administrative and operational departments. Beyond technical aspects, the PPMP is
directly aligned with good governance practices and ESG principles. By prioritizing prevention, the institution optimizes the use of public resources, reduces waste of supplies, and increases the sustainability of hospital operations. It also strengthens public trust, demonstrating a commitment to transparency and patient safety. In the study conducted at INCA, it was
found that a significant portion of service orders were still related to corrective maintenance. This scenario highlights the need to increase the percentage of preventive maintenance performed in order to reduce recurring failures, minimise clinical risks, and improve the performance of hospital infrastructure. Therefore, the KPI Percentage of
Preventive Maintenance Performed is more than a number: it is an indicator of reliability, safety, and sustainability, capable of guiding managers in building strategic hospital maintenance, less reactive and more aligned with the mission of saving lives. Failure Recurrence indicator measures
how often the same problem recurs after corrective or preventive maintenance. This KPI is crucial for assessing the quality of maintenance team interventions and the effectiveness of management processes applied to hospital assets. In healthcare settings, recurring failures pose a significant risk. When critical systems experience repeated failures, patient safety can be compromised and service continuity can be jeopardised. Therefore, monitoring the failure recurrence rate allows us to identify whether repairs are being implemented definitively or whether they are merely stopgap solutions that fail to address the root cause of the problem. From a management perspective, this
KPI provides insights into improving maintenance planning. High recurrence
IFHE DIGEST 2026
KPIs are proposed to assess efficiency, safety, and resource optimisation
rates may indicate the need to review technical procedures, retrain staff, replace obsolete parts, or even completely renew equipment whose useful life cycle has already expired. Furthermore, recurring failures directly impact operating costs, as repetitive maintenance increases the consumption of financial and human resources without adding value to the operation. Analysing this indicator also connects
with governance practices and ESG principles. Reducing recurrent failures means improving system reliability, increasing resource efficiency, and minimising waste, reinforcing the sustainability of hospital operations. In the context of the Unified Health System (SUS), where resources are limited, reducing recurrent failures is essential to ensure equity in care and continuity of care services .
In the case of INCA , analysis of service
orders revealed that certain assets were experiencing significant recurrence of failures. This scenario reinforces the importance of KPIs as a tool for prioritising investments in preventive maintenance and equipment replacement, as well as guiding the setting of realistic goals for team performance. Therefore, the Failure Recurrence KPI should be considered a barometer of hospital maintenance effectiveness . Continuous monitoring allows reactive practices to be transformed into preventive strategies, increasing infrastructure reliability, protecting lives, and strengthening public trust in public healthcare management.
Discussion The application of KPIs in the Brazilian hospital context demonstrates that it is possible to improve maintenance efficiency even in environments with limited resources. Average response time, for example, can be reduced with better- sized teams and computerised management systems. Increasing the percentage of preventive maintenance is associated with a reduction in corrective orders and, consequently, lower costs. Furthermore, analysing the recurrence of failures allows for the identification of critical points that require strategic planning. However, implementing these indicators requires the commitment of maintenance teams and the support of senior management, reinforcing hospital governance.
Final considerations Hospital building maintenance, especially in critical environments, should be understood as a strategic part of healthcare management. This article presents a proposal for performance indicators adapted to the Brazilian context, capable of supporting managers in making safer and more efficient decisions. By aligning building maintenance with public governance and ESG principles, it is possible to ensure service continuity, reduce risks, and strengthen the trust of patients and healthcare professionals. It is recommended that future studies expand the practical application of KPIs in different healthcare institutions, validating their effectiveness in different regional and structural settings.
Bibliography 1 EBSERH. Management Reports of the Brazilian Hospital Services Company. Brasília, 2022.
2 Guimarães JMC. The problematic of building maintenance and equipment in public health establishments in the municipality of Rio de Janeiro. Dissertation (Masters in Professional Education in Health) – Polytechnic School of Health Joaquim Venâncio – Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, 2012.
3 Karman J, Fiorentini D, Karman J. NM Maintenance incorporated into hospital architecture. Brasília: Ministry of Health/SAS, 1995. [
https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/ publicacoes/manut_hospit.pdf].
4 Chen Y et al. Hospital maintenance management: challenges and solutions . Journal of Facilities Management 2020.
5 Dejaco M, Gramigna G, Moretti N. Facility management in healthcare. Facilities 2019.
6 FIOCRUZ. Hospital maintenance management: challenges and perspectives. Rio de Janeiro, 2012.
7 Fotovatfard A, Heravi G. Maintenance management in healthcare facilities. J Build Eng 2021.
8 Yousefli Z, Nasiri F, Moselhi O. Healthcare facilities maintenance management: a literature review. Journal of Facilities Management 2017; 5 (4): 352-75. [DOI: 10.1108/JFM-10-2016-0040].
9 Xenos H. Sizing maintenance teams. São Paulo: Manole, 1998.
10 Ebiloma DO, Aigbavboa CO, Anumba C. Towards digital twin maintenance management of healthcare facilities in Nigeria: the need for maintenance documentation. Buildings 2023; 13 (5): 1-15. [
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051339].
11 Enshassi AA, El Shorafa F. Key performance indicators for the maintenance of public hospitals buildings in the Gaza Strip . Facilities 2015; 33 (3/4): 206–28.
12 ABNT. NBR 5674: Building maintenance – Requirements for the maintenance management system. Rio de Janeiro, 2012.
13 ANVISA RDC No. 2/2010. BRAZIL. National Provides for the minimum requirements for the physical infrastructure of health services.
25
IFHE
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 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
