Distinction Between Obsolete and Temporarily Out of Commission Equipment (BRCGS Issue 9)

[Nicholas Macy]

In relation to 4.6 from BRCGS Issue 9: Does there need to be a documented distinction between obsolete equipment not in use and equipment that is only temporarily out of commission or not required?

 

[Marzena STC & QTC]

Yes, you should distinguish between obsolete equipment and equipment that’s temporarily out of service. For obsolete equipment, it should be clearly marked and removed to avoid confusion. For temporarily out-of-service equipment, document how it’s managed, cleaned, and stored safely until it’s back in use. This keeps things clear and compliant for audits.

 

[Cathy Gladwin]

Spot on @Marzena STC & QTC
Imagine if there's no evidence of it's obsolete status and now the site can't show that it's being maintained and calibrated... it's an NC waiting to happen.

 

[Marzena STC & QTC]

Spot on @Marzena STC & QTC
Imagine if there's no evidence of it's obsolete status and now the site can't show that it's being maintained and calibrated... it's an NC waiting to happen.

Fully agree @Cathy. Besides, it’s best to remove obsolete equipment as soon as possible to avoid awkward questions during an audit - especially if, as you mentioned, the site hasn’t made it clear that the equipment is no longer in use.

 

[Cathy Gladwin]

That makes me think @Marzena STC & QTC how I have often seen sites very organised regarding equipment, planned maintenance and repair works etc. they have often been able to show me how they have the "issue" logged nicely on their system, showing the current status and planned works. SO whatever the issue is, whether it's obsolete equipment or equipment awaiting repair or out of calibration for some reason, the status is clear on the system. Of course, we want to see the equipment stored approprately (covered for example) and it's clear the site is managing these things well. No reason to raise any NC's and everyone is happy