In short
A device fault is written on the separate lines of the fault record and of the physician's act. It does not lock of itself onto a single name. How the device will fail, and how it will be repaired, are not in this text. A sum, a percentage, and how many days apart the maintenance is done are not here either.
This text answers why the two lines will not join. It does not rewrite the hour of the shift, or the share of the team list.
The line of the fault record
The fault record is the line that writes that the device was taken out of use, that it was seen as faulty, or that it was notified to the maintenance unit. If the time, the unit that wrote it, and the identity of the device are on the line, they are read. If there is no time, a time is not invented. A time that was not invented does not produce at which moment the fault started either. If the serial number of the device, or the name of the room, stands in the note, the identity that stands is read. If there is no identity, a device in another room is not carried onto this line.
If there is no record at all, it is not completed as the device having been faulty. A fault that was not completed does not of itself make the hospital the only one responsible. An absence that does not do that does not of itself clear the physician either. Neither result is built without a record. The patient's account that the device failed does not stand in for the maintenance book. If the account and the book conflict, both are kept. One does not erase the other.
This line does not recount how the device will fail, or how it will be repaired. Work that was not recounted is not written into the petition as a technical description either. The name of a part, a software version, or a calibration step is not added if it does not stand in the record. A step that was not added does not build a ruling of fault either. A step that does not build one is not advice on repair.
The notification can also stand as a sentence inside the clinical note. If the physician wrote that the device gave a warning, that sentence is read. The sentence is not, in every file, the same as the record of the maintenance unit. If the maintenance record says sound and the physician says it gave a warning, the two sentences stand side by side. One does not erase the other. A conflict that was not erased is not closed in favour of a single unit.
The line of the physician's act
The physician's act is the clinical note about that device. If the note writes whether the device was used, whether the warning was seen, and whether the procedure was continued, that sentence is read. The note is not a copy of the fault record. A sentence that it was used does not of itself write that the device was sound, or that it was faulty. Soundness or a fault is read from the line that stands separately.
If the physician wrote that they continued with a device that already appeared faulty in the record, the act of continuing is a separate line. This line does not turn into a description of why the device failed. A line that does not turn into that does not teach a repair step either. A step that was not taught does not build a ruling of fault either. Continuing is not counted as fault in every file. Whether it will be counted is not said before the warning sentence and the procedure sentence are read side by side.
If the physician's note does not mention the device at all, it is not completed as if it had mentioned it. A note that was not completed does not mean the physician saw the warning either. A claim of not seeing is not closed in a single sentence from the blank in the note. The blank is asked. The blank that was asked is read together with whether there is a maintenance record. If there is no maintenance record either, the two absences are written side by side. The two absences are not tied to a single name.
The hour in the handover of a shift is in the article on a shift handover. That hour is not the hour of the fault record. The handover note is not a document showing that the device was kept ready for use. The name on the team list is in the article on the operating team. The name is not written in place of the device. The physician who stands on the list is not chosen as the addressee of the fault line.
Why the two lines do not join
The fault record is the trace of whether the device was kept ready for use. The physician's act is the trace of the practice at that moment. A sentence that joins as "the physician because of the device" makes both traces unreadable. A trace that is not read is not tied to a single name. The joined sentence is not built to clear the hospital or the physician either. A clearing that was not built does not produce a sum.
The third paragraph of Article 66 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, Law No. 6098 writes that a person who employs someone in an enterprise is liable to make good the harm arising from the activity of the enterprise, unless they prove that the organisation of the work was fit to prevent the harm arising. Whether the device was open for use can be asked within this frame in a private enterprise. The paragraph does not put the fault record in place of the physician's act. The paragraph does not declare the hospital the only one responsible in every file either. The burden of proof is not treated as met of itself while there is no record. Proof that was not treated as met does not erase the physician's line either.
The care in the physician's own act can be discussed, in a private relationship, by the measure of a prudent attorney in Article 506 of the same code. The measure does not make every fault the physician's fault. Not every file is locked as a mandate either. The opposing party in a public hospital is in the article on the defendant in a malpractice action. The opposing party is not chosen from the fault label. A private enterprise and a public institution are not squeezed into the same paragraph.
The criminal route and the route of compensation are not separated of themselves from the fault label either. The distinction is in the article on the criminal side and compensation. This page does not choose a type of offence. The device being faulty does not, on its own, write a criminal character. The character is read from the sentence of the act in the file.
A name is not chosen while there is no record
While there is no fault line, a name is not chosen as the hospital, the physician, or the manufacturer. The manufacturer is not completed as the addressee of this text. If a warranty document, an invoice, or a service slip stands in the file, that paper carries its own question. If there is no paper, the absence is not shifted onto the manufacturer or the hospital. An absence that was not shifted does not make the physician's clinical note a device record either.
Whether the record was changed later is in the article on the medical record. Adding or erasing the fault line later is not the subject of this text. A change that is not the subject is not written as a method either. If two copies say, one faulty and one sound, both are kept. The conflict that was kept is not turned, on this page, into a technical story of repair.
A poor outcome does not of itself become a fault of the device because there is a fault record. The outcome does not of itself become the physician's act because there is no record either. The outcome and the two lines are read side by side. A name is not locked before they come side by side. A name that was not locked does not carry a percentage either.
The maintenance organisation and the clinical decision
At what interval the maintenance is done is not written as a number of days in this text. If the interval stands in the institution's own plan, that plan is read. If there is no plan, a plan is not invented. The plan standing does not of itself write that the device of that day was sound either. The state of that day is read from the fault line and from the clinical note. If the plan and the line of that day conflict, the conflict is kept.
The clinical decision is the sentence of whether to use the device. If the decision is not in the note, it is not completed as if there were a decision. A decision that was not completed does not mean the physician saw every warning. A claim of seeing, and a claim of not seeing, are both asked from the sentence in the note. So long as the sentence and the maintenance record stay apart, a promise of a single person responsible is not built.
The unit that wrote the notification can differ from the clinical unit. A biomedical or technical-service line is not the physician's request. The request is not read as a copy of the technical-service record. If the times of the two units conflict, the conflict is kept. The conflict that was kept does not turn into a description of why the device failed. If it is written that a spare device was used, that sentence is read. If there is no name of the spare device, a name is not invented. A name that was not invented does not erase the fault record of the main device. A sentence that it was not used stands only if it stands in the note. A sentence that does not stand does not mean the procedure was done without the device. Whether it was done without the device is asked from the procedure note's own sentence. The name of a part on the service slip is not carried into the clinical note if it is not in the clinical note. A name that was not carried does not teach a repair step either. If the date of the slip stands after the time of the clinical note, the order is written. The order does not of itself build a ruling that the fault started before the procedure. An order that does not build one does not erase the line of the physician's act either.
The district where the office is does not change the authority of the institution where the device stands. The authority is read from the place where the record was kept.
The office in Çankaya does not choose the authority the file will go to.
Conclusion
In a device fault, what is read are the separate lines of the fault record and of the physician's act. A single person responsible is not declared. There is no method of failure and no method of repair. A maintenance day, a sum and a percentage are not in this text. The frame is on the health law page. Which record is asked for can be asked from the contact line. The question is not a promise of repair or of an outcome. A name is not locked before the two lines are seen.