Combined Maintenance Controller Review — Viamed & VST
Executive Summary

Overall assessment: Satisfactory / Effective — minor improvement actions only.

The Maintenance Controller function appears to be operationally effective for both Viamed and VST. Routine building, environmental and infrastructure maintenance is generally being carried out, with evidence of regular checks, maintenance meetings, risk assessments and completed rolling tasks. The reports cover 24 active processes, with only one currently classified as overdue, two processes more than 24 months since review, four with only one trained user, one missing a measurable objective, and one with no populated risk assessment.

Importantly, VST's dependence upon Viamed infrastructure is not in itself a concern. Heating, buildings, alarms, electrical systems, maintenance administration and similar services are genuinely shared resources. There is therefore no justification for creating duplicate VST maintenance arrangements merely to make the VST report look independent.

Current position by company
Company	Assessment	Comment
Viamed	Satisfactory / Effective	Good evidence of active preventative maintenance and building oversight. Some administrative/process maturity gaps remain but there is no indication of systemic maintenance failure.
VST	Satisfactory / Effective	Effectively supported through the shared Viamed infrastructure. The same maintenance controls are therefore legitimately visible in the VST report. No separate VST infrastructure system is required simply for ISO purposes.
Items worth management attention

The most obvious process-documentation weakness remains Carbon Reduction Planning. It is only 1/6 maturity (17%), has no populated risk assessment, no measurable objective, no audit and no recent completion evidence. This looks more like an underdeveloped process record than evidence that carbon-reduction activity itself is not happening, so I would treat it as an improvement/action rather than an NC.

The single-person dependency figures also deserve gradual improvement, but I would not regard all four as significant continuity risks. For example, General Maintenance Requirements presently lists Helen alone, although it is essentially a quarterly oversight/meeting process. The two Vandagraph WEEE processes are also counted in the report with Derek as the sole trained person, despite being specifically linked to Vandagraph rather than Viamed/VST. So the headline "4 solo-trained processes" slightly overstates the practical Viamed/VST maintenance exposure.

There is a genuine small backlog around the R&D room weekly housekeeping task: entries generated on 12 and 19 August were still open on 24 August, at 12 and 5 days respectively. Because this is a weekly task, the older instance is worth clearing, but the history shows that these tasks have often been bulk-completed later. I would classify this as routine overdue housekeeping, not a systemic maintenance concern, unless the physical R&D area is actually found to be untidy or unsafe.

One important correction to the report narrative

There is some old management-review narrative embedded in the task history which should not be treated as the current assessment.

For example, that older text says the Maintenance Controller Review itself was incomplete and that "Electrics Need Checking" was still outstanding. The current report contradicts that: Maintenance Controller Review #8109 is now 6/6 maturity (100%), with risk assessment, audit, measurable objective, backup, current review and recent evidence all populated.

Likewise, the electrical-check task was completed on 4 June 2026, although it took 94 days. So I would not carry "electrics outstanding" forward as a current finding.

Management Review Conclusion

For the actual review record, I would use:

The Maintenance Controller arrangements for Viamed and VST remain suitable and effective. VST operates using Viamed's shared premises, utilities and supporting infrastructure; consequently, common maintenance processes and records appropriately support both companies and do not require unnecessary duplication.

The review found good evidence of continuing preventative maintenance, building and environmental controls, routine inspection and issue follow-up. No significant recurring infrastructure failure, safety breakdown or systemic maintenance nonconformance was identified.

Minor improvement opportunities remain in completing the Carbon Reduction Planning process information, maintaining appropriate backup coverage where reasonably practicable, reviewing older process records and clearing routine overdue maintenance tasks. These matters do not presently indicate failure of the maintenance system and can be managed through normal process improvement and rolling actions.

Overall: Maintenance controls remain satisfactory and appropriate for both Viamed and VST. No new nonconformance is considered necessary from this review.

That is the conclusion I would record for both companies, rather than creating two substantially different reviews just because one report says Viamed and the other VST.