## 3 Results
Options 1 and 3 were found to be less likely to be in the first five states, i.e., the system will remain less time in states that have been deemed suitable for healthcare centers. Therefore, options 2, 4 and 5 were analyzed to select the best solution. Option 5 presents a 0.39% probability that the system is in state 6. However, despite being a very low probability, the authors considered that the system could not reach that state so the option will not be suitable. The fourth option shows a high probability that the system is in states 1, 2 and 3 with a value of 49.55%, 25.81% and 22.58%, respectively. This determines that the system will be in the first three states most of the time with this maintenance policy. The second option has a 0% chance of being in state 1 since maintenance causes the system to return to state 2. The probabilities of the system being in states 2, 3, and 5 with this maintenance policy are 57.85%, 38.46% and 3.31%, respectively. The system in the states illustrated above is suitable in both cases. These two maintenance strategies are not prioritized, but instead there is a combination of the two, according to the average monthly incidents of each of the 25 healthcare centers to obtain a better solution. Thus, the healthcare centers that require maintenance that resolves more incidents, but with less frequency, will opt for option 4. However, centers that require more regular maintenance, but correct fewer incidents, will choose option 2. As each healthcare center is more suited to one option than the other, the use of the two maintenance strategies will increase the success of the outcome. The number of average monthly incidents that each of the healthcare centers has was recorded to determine whether the maintenance is carried out every 1, 2 or 3 weeks. These data were extracted from the historical archives available at the technical services responsible for the maintenance of the health centers, for three years. Table 3 shows the average monthly incidents, RP being the speed factor with which the first failure occurs, considering A > 2 days; B from 3-6 days; C > 6 days, N\({}^{\circ}\) the average monthly number of nonurgent failures and HCC is the healthcare center studied. The relationship between the results shows that the maintenance frequency and policy depend on the average incidents in each of the healthcare centers every month. Table 4 shows when the maintenance is carried out according to monthly incidents and the most appropriate maintenance option. The broadest range of incidents allowed by each option was chosen, adequately managing the resources, and consequently, reducing maintenance costs. With this, the number of incidents corrected after maintenance in options 2 and 4 is 15 and 20, respectively. Therefore, this will be the maximum number of incidents allowed between maintenance visits. Table 5 shows the best maintenance option and periodicity for each of the 25 healthcare centers analyzed. Then, the data of Table 5 were grouped by similarity of the frequency of maintenance actions of each of the centers and their respective maintenance policies. Figure 5 illustrates this grouping. The authors found that option 2 was more convenient in 14 of the 25 healthcare centers since maintenance is carried out every week in five centers, every two weeks in two centers and every three weeks in seven centers. On the other hand, of the remaining 11 healthcare centers, seven centers have a periodicity of two weeks and four centers have a periodicity of three weeks. By optimizing the frequency of maintenance of a healthcare center, maintenance can be carried out at more appropriate times, instead of every 15 days across all the healthcare centers in the sample. This approach also reduces transport and labor costs. After conducting the study, the authors found that the healthcare centers of this study were able to save 700 km of travel per month, saving time and fuel, and reducing emissions by 174.3 kg of CO\({}_{2}\) each month.