How does the platform run preventive maintenance so equipment fails on schedule, not surprise?
Design target · Expected outcome
Operator-baseline repair mix review
Design target modeled from workflow design. No operator community has been measured, no approved Evidence Record supports it, and business outcomes remain contributory — figures are targets, not results. See Industry Findings for methodology.
Incumbents this workflow touches
Performs in-platform: PM binder updated annually
Roadmap integration targets (not live): UpKeep · Building Engines · eMaint · Manufacturer service portals
SeniorCRE does not “replace” the EHR. Where PointClickCare, MatrixCare, Yardi, or OnShift are in place, the workflow runs on top of the existing record via integration.
The problem
PM in most communities is a binder. The HVAC unit was supposed to get a quarterly inspection but it has been seven months. When it fails in August, the cost is far more than the inspection would have been.
How the platform runs it
Every asset on the PM register has a service schedule, an assigned technician (internal or vendor), and the parts and procedures required. PMs generate as work orders on schedule with photo and meter documentation. Missed PMs escalate. Asset-level service history travels with the asset across its life.
On the shift
The PM schedule for the month opens with 87 tasks across HVAC, kitchen equipment, generators, fire systems, and life-safety items. Each is assigned, scheduled, and tracked to completion with the inspection checklist captured on the tablet. The generator test that ran Tuesday flagged a slow start; the corrective work order generated automatically. The life-safety binder the state will ask for is current by construction.
What the outcome looks like
Design target: emergency repair calls drop 20–35%, and capital reserves can be deployed against known equipment lifecycles instead of surprise failures.
What goes wrong without it
Without a PM program, equipment runs until it fails. The walk-in freezer goes down on a Saturday. The fire-alarm system fails an annual inspection because the quarterly battery checks were skipped. The state surveyor asks for the PM log and the answer is a binder that was last updated 14 months ago.
Show me the evidence
Operators do not buy claims. They buy proof. If anything on this page reads as aspirational, ask us to walk you through exactly what is built, what is designed, and what is not yet in production in any community.
Where this connects in the platform
Every facilities workflow runs on the same record. These are the feature pages, head-to-head comparisons, and pillar articles that go deeper on the surfaces this workflow touches.
Feature surfaces
Compared head-to-head
Facilities and life-safety references
Facilities workflows on this page map to the CMS Emergency Preparedness Final Rule, the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) adopted by reference in 42 CFR 483.90, and CDC environmental infection-prevention guidance.
- CMS Emergency Preparedness Final Rule
CMS
Defines the four-element EP program — risk assessment, policies, communication plan, training and testing — surveyed under E-Tags.
- NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (as adopted by CMS)
CMS / NFPA
The fire-safety code surveyed by state fire marshals; drives K-Tag citations and corrective work orders.
- CDC Environmental Infection Control Guidelines
CDC
Authoritative source for water management (Legionella), HVAC, and surface cleaning protocols enforced through F-880.
- ASHRAE Standard 188 — Legionellosis Risk Management
ASHRAE
The water management plan framework CMS expects post-2017 memo QSO-17-30; drives the legionella workflow.