Table 3.
Evaluation items and scoring table.
| No | Evaluation item |
SMC
(Korea) |
AUMC
(Korea) |
KUMC
(Korea) |
Winnipeg
(Canada) |
Hamilton
(Canada) |
Umass
(US) |
U.S.Military
(US) |
Stanton
(Canada) |
VA
(USA) |
Giza
(Egypt) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Failure rate | 25 | 10 | 10 | 10 | O | 70.35 | |||||
| 2 | Maintenance cost rate | 10 | 10 | 20 | 5.4 | O | 8.04 | O | ||||
| 3 | Model discontinuation | 10 | 30 | 30 | ||||||||
| 4 | Part discontinuation | 15 | 16.1 | O | x2 | O | ||||||
| 5 | Age | 20 | 25 | 20 | 10 | 13.6 | O | 4.02 | 5 | O | O | |
| 6 | Daily inspection | 4 | ||||||||||
| 7 | BMET evaluation | 16 | 25 | 20 | ||||||||
| 9 | Reliability | 50 | ||||||||||
| 10 | Device obsolescence | 18.9 | 5 | |||||||||
| 11 | Frequency of use | 10 | 15.4 | |||||||||
| 12 | Repair time | 4.6 | O | |||||||||
| 13 | Equipment risk | 10 | 10 | 20.7 | ||||||||
| 14 | Purchase amount | 5.4 | ||||||||||
| 15 | Model unity | |||||||||||
| 16 | Accident history | O | x4 | O | ||||||||
| 17 | Technological progress | O | 7.04 | O | ||||||||
| 18 | 5-year plan | 10.55 | ||||||||||
| 19 | Physical high risk | 10 | 5 | O | ||||||||
| 20 | Service response time | O | ||||||||||
| 21 | Use of backup devices | 10 | x2 | |||||||||
| 22 | Main device (expensive) | 5 | ||||||||||
| 23 | Adjustment | Obsolescence | 20 | |||||||||
| 24 | variable | Depreciation | x0.5, x1 | x0.5 | ||||||||
| 25 | Accident history | x3 | ||||||||||
| Highest point | 100 | 120 | 320 | 100 | 100 | Item disclosure | 100 | 50 | Some disclosure | Item disclosure | ||
SMC, Samsung Medical Center; AUMC, Ajou University Medical Center; KUMC, Konkuk University Medical Center; BMET, biomedical equipment technician.