The Outlook on OEM Access

The right for radiation-emitting imaging equipment owners to service their own equipment is undeniable and set forth in regulations, but still there are some manufacturers that make effective and efficient healthcare technology management solutions as difficult as possible unless the owner maintains the OEMs costly annual service contracts.

Sooner or later most facilities have to face the financial consequences of maintaining a service agreement that now can cost more annually than the current value of the system. When they finally make the decision, earlier or later, to leave the OEM protection, the issues of service access comes to light.

Since I have no idea what senior management at these manufacturers actually think when it comes to second source service, the least I can do is explain how I see it:

• Once x-ray equipment is no longer under an OEM service contract, the manufacturer loses a measure of control over the machine and the facility.
• The OEM banks on the continued perception of quality as it relates to the repair and maintenance of that system.
• If the system goes down, and cannot be repaired quickly as a result of access restrictions or documentation limitations, the facility is penalized, because it may take several additional days to repair. This is not only going to reflect poorly on an in-house service group, but also on the equipment and by extension the OEM as well. If the system is unavailable for multiple days every time it has a service issue, it will not take long for it to gain a reputation for always being down.
• Imaging centers eventually have to replace equipment. Even if they do not confer with engineering, how likely are they to buy another system from the same company that made “Room 4 which is always down”?

A few manufacturers are starting to provide a greater level of service access to the equipment owners. Whether this is happening by the force of regulation or the end users themselves, I am not certain. What I can tell you is that it is not happening by sudden OEM generosity. I can also tell you that it takes a week for RSTI to get any new software installed that grants limited access. Then you need to waste another week getting permission to use it with a license to use the new access. If this had happened at a medical facility, waiting a couple days would have been unacceptable. Imagine how nearly two weeks of wait time to complete repairs would make them feel.

It is a no brainer that the equipment owner should have full access to service their own equipment, then why, by extension, wouldn’t anyone acting as their agent also be granted equivalent access? OEMs don’t expect technologists to maintain the equipment, so either an employee or third party would need to perform these services.

Every owner of diagnostic imaging equipment should have the right to repair without repercussion from the OEM in any way.

To me it’s like buying a car and after its warranty is up. The only person other than the manufacturer that has access to service your car is you. Thus far the primary OEM argument remains unchanged. “Minimal end user access needs to be available, but only as is necessary to maintain patient safety, because the systems generate X-Rays.”

Recent retorts by the OEMs are that they are the only ones that are capable of repairing and maintaining the safety of the systems. After more than 29 years of teaching engineers to maintain the safety of all forms of radiation generating equipment I can tell you this is patently untrue.

This article was originally posted on RSTI.