An operational maintenance approach for improving physiological monitor by HFMEA process: an empirical case study.

This study explored the application of healthcare failure mode and effect analysis (HFMEA) to identify and evaluate risk-associated factors in the intensive care unit (ICU) through a clinical-based expert knowledge (decision) for the physiological monitor operational maintenance process. Methods and intervention: A mixed qualitative and quantitative proactive approach to explore the HFMEA process by analyzing 20 units of physiological monitors in the ICU. An HFMEA expert team of six people was formed to perform a risk-based analysis and evaluate the potential hazard index, mitigating the hazard scores and risks. Results: From the main processes and possible failure reasons, one high-risk hazard index greater than or equal to 8 of the standard score was found. This standard score indicates the signed manufacturer's contract for maintenance was the hazard index failure mode on the parts not regularly replaced according to the contract. This systematic hazard index failure mode shows the highest hazard scores in the possible failure reason category, established as a standard maintenance procedure. In addition, the HFMEA expert analysis of the 20 units of physiological monitors within 6 months of the original and remanufactured part maintenance results in operational availability from 90.9% for self-repair to 99.2% for contract manufacturer repair. Conclusions: This study concludes a systematic reference in malpractices caused by maintenance negligence. The HFMEA expert team agrees that hazard failure scores greater than or equal to 8 are vital assessments and evaluations for decision-making, especially in maintaining healthcare intensive unit care physiological monitors.

Comparison of clinical effects between warm water spray and sitz bath in post-hemorrhoidectomy period.

BACKGROUND: Warm water sitz bath is advised for a variety of anorectal disorders. However, preparation of the sitz bath is sometimes difficult for patients. As an alternative to the sitz bath, we have adapted a water spray method. A randomized, controlled study was conducted to determine if the water spray method has similar effects to the sitz bath in the post-hemorrhoidectomy period and it is easy to carry out. METHODS: A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to water spray or sitz bath groups. All patients received analgesics and a fiber-rich diet after hemorrhoidectomy. Clinical parameters including pain, irritation (burning or itching sensations), hygiene, convenience, and overall satisfaction were evaluated by a visual analog scale to assess treatment outcome in both groups. RESULTS: There was no obvious difference in age, gender distribution, body mass index, or duration of disease between groups. There were no significant difference in scores for postoperative pain (p = 0.23), irritation (p = 0.48), or hygiene (p = 0.725) between groups. However, the water spray group reported significantly greater convenience (p < 0.05) and higher overall satisfaction (p < 0.05) compared with the sitz bath group. At the end of the 4-week postoperative follow-up period, 90% of patients in the watery spray group and 93% of patients in the sitz bath group showed complete wound healing. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between groups. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the water spray method could provide a safe and reliable alternative to the sitz bath for post-hemorrhoidectomy care. Furthermore, the water spray method could be used instead of the sitz bath as a more convenient and satisfactory form of treatment.