Author Archive for Lisa Eddy

PPR CHANGES COMING!

Complete revision of the PPR appears to be a reality. What we heard from Executive Briefings was that the torturous process of filling out the PPR will be eliminated as a requirement; however the tool will remain available for those organizations that wish to use it for self assessment purposes. There will be no more option 1-4; however some of the nuances of the options will be available. There was some contradiction in the information provided regarding this, and we’ll just have to wait and see what shakes out. A question was raised about retaining the current PPR option that allows identification of an issue with an action plan for correction, providing immunity if the issue is discovered during survey, however, there was no clarification from the podium.

The proposed new process will be mandatory for each organization (which would seem the current option 1 with no call would be eliminated.) This new process consists of “touch points”. At specified time periods (currently proposed are 6 months, and 18 months) the organization will have an option of an onsite visit from TJC or a telephone call with TJC (with the organization’s representative and a member of SIG.) The purpose?

• At the six month time period after the final survey report was posted, the contact would be to assure the ESC/POC was working and that survey issues were resolved, that there was customer value, and that the customer value assessment (something new that we’ll get to shortly) checked, survey feedback obtained, an update of the electronic application and a selection of the 18 month option (onsite visit or call.)
• During the 6 to 18 month period (the time between the two calls or onsite visits) the organization must complete what the organization feels is important for that organization in the PPR (this is in writing in the printed materials distributed.) During this time period the organization is to assess structure standards (documentation/policies), previous problem areas (PPR pre-populated – what the organization feels is important) and organization risk points (PFA/S3 data)
• At the 18 month time period an onsite visit or call with the organization representative and a member of SIG is held where top issues of organizational concern, issues from “like” organizations, top issues from the organization’s outcome data (S3, sentinel events, etc.), implementation ideas and leading practices that TJC has gleaned from other organizations and wishes to share, the electronic application update and customer value assessment (CVA) are discussed.
• There is no charge for this process. The “touch point” PPR process is mandatory and will replace the traditional PPR process.
• The “touch point” PPR process is framed under “shared responsibility for continuously meeting quality standards”, and currently, is in draft stages. There is an understanding that some, if not many, of these issues have change slightly.

Special Note: Pat Adamski from TJC (who is consistently informed, realistic and takes a very common sense approach to the standards (probably because she is a nurse  ) stated that late submission of a PPR in the current environment (before the “touch point” revision implementation) will not result in provisional accreditation status. Pat stated TJC will “work with the organization” if they are running behind, however the organization should alert the representative about the delay, and communication is a must.

Those are the proposed changes folks. What the take away was, is that TJC is trying to get more real value from the PPR process. We’re glad they are trying and this points to their new “customer centered” focus. How well this process will work will unfold as the months progress.

News from Executive Briefings

During the Executive Briefings held by The Joint Commission on Friday, September 25, 2009 in Los Angeles, several interesting issues were announced, some key elements of the National Patient Safety Goal revisions were clarified and much information was presented. During the ensuing weeks, we will be providing information on “take aways” from the briefings and what these may mean to your organization. First out of the gate however, is a follow-up to our Center Member Audioconference held on September 17, where reference was made to possible changes in the survey scoring process and the PPR. It seems, from information provided during the briefings, that both of these issues have merit.

Scoring:
Supposedly there are no “magic numbers” that result in adverse action, even though the surveyor days/bands have been published. According to all speakers, there never have been specific numbers that rendered an organization immediately into adverse action (other than the level 2 direct impact or immediate threat findings.) Notably, all speakers concurred that the issue of number of direct impact RFIs tipping an organization into adverse action has been a misconception by the industry since the publication of the “bands”.

So what is important with number of direct impact RFIs? Trends and significance of the RFI(s). An organization supposedly can net a large number of direct impact RFIs (over the identified “band” level) and not be placed in adverse action if the RFIs did not negatively trend toward any particular issue (for example the RFIs didn’t trend toward patient safety or leadership, life safety, mediation management or performance improvement.) What would the accreditation status be in the scenario of say, 17 direct impact RFIs for a small hospital if they were unrelated and did not trend toward a given issue? Fully accredited with RFIs. However, rarely are RFIs unrelated and it can be assumed a larger number of RFIs may well trend negatively in some given area. That is why the preliminary reports are submitted to Chicago for SIG review (no more stopping at your account rep first) and determination.  Each report is to be reviewed individually, with accreditation status rendered on the individual merit of the report. Obviously, if there are few direct impact RFIs, there is little for the organization to worry about.

So, what were the surveyor bands all about? What was the purpose in publishing them if they didn’t have any real meaning? Were they just “guidelines”?  That question was not answered.

A follow-up note here about accreditation report turn-around-time. From the podium: TJC must turn an accreditation report around to the client organization and post within 10 working days (per CMS requirements), however TJC is now showing a posted report TAT of 2 -3 days. That means all organizations that wish to clarify any RFIs should start the clarification process as soon as possible as lead time for data gathering and auditing has been reduced.

PPR:
There are significant changes afoot with the PPR with the previous options 1-4 “going away” to be replaced with a mandatory “touch point” process where the organization “touches base” with TJC either via onsite presence or telephone call with the account rep and a member of SIG at specific time periods (six and eighteen months post survey). The PPR changes are not final yet, the Joint Commission is still conducting some fine tuning. We’ll have more information for you on the details of the proposed PPR changes later this week.

Turn-Around-Time on TJC Survey Reports

  Used to be a healthcare organization would have weeks (….and weeks) before their TJC report was reviewed by the powers that be in Chicago, scrubbed, and posted to the organization’s website. Now, however, TJC has an approximate goal of a ten day turn around time (2 weeks) to get that report reviewed and posted. And we’ve seen client reports posted as early as 7 days! What does this mean to you? Less time to work on your clarifications. When an organization seeks to clarify RFIs (or elements of performance under a given RFI, even if the standard won’t be removed), TJC allows a 10 working day (excluding weekends and holidays) time frame. Clarifications must be submitted within the 10 day period. Prior to 2009, we advised clients to wait until the final report was posted before implementing an “all hands on deck” approach to their clarifications; primarily because some of the findings were expected to be changed during the TJC “scrubbing” process, and the organization could be working on a clarification that would not come back in the posted report. Lately, with the rapid turn-around-time of the posted report, if an organization waits to collect data needed for the clarifications, they may find themselves running out of time. Some of the audits required to clarify category “C” elements of performance can be very time consuming, as can researching a given finding for an “A” category element of performance. So we recommend organizations review the preliminary report, and start the clarification process early for any findings that are scored correctly (i.e., under the correct element of performance, under the correct standard – for example, if the surveyor cited the hospital for an untimely H&P under the RC standard, the issue belongs under the PC standard and has been incorrectly scored.) We’ve seen very little changes in the scrubbed and posted reports, and, with the stepped-up posting turn-around-time, your organization may benefit from an early start.

TJC March 2009 New and Revised Standard Changes

Thursday, March 26, 2009 the Joint Commission released revised 2009 Release of the Revised 2009 Accreditation Requirements for the Hospital Accreditation Program. This revision is in response to the 165 new and revised elements of performance released January 5, 2009, specifically developed to further align the Joint Commission with the CMS Conditions of Participation (due to the need to accomplish the deeming authority which TJC is looking to renew in July of 2010.) In an audio-conference the week of the March 26th, TJC clarified the March  document noting a reduction to 87 new and revised elements of performance, from the January release. This new March release and reduction to 87 elements of performance does not include the category of EP (neither category A nor C are listed), and whether the EP is scored as a direct impact (level 3) or non-direct impact (level 4) EP. How these will be scored will be forthcoming with no date provided by TJC at present, but take heart, once the determination is made, there will be yet another posting of the changes, this time with the scoring categories. [more]

Clarification of TJC S3 Scoring

Have you noticed your TJC S3 score rising? Has it risen markedly over the last two quarters? If so, you may have some questions that you’ve had trouble answering. Hopefully, we can provide some insight that will prove helpful. In discussions with the folks back in Chicago overseeing  S3 scoring (who have been most helpful), there was a bump in Quarter 2 ‘08 reported data that most hospitals felt, which was due to data from SCIP measures. TJC had neglected to factor in the SCIP ORYX (core measure) outcomes into the scoring system as they have with all other ORYX measures. So, suddenly, quarter 2 ‘08 reflected this data and caused a sudden (and in many cases, distinct) rise in S3 total. Another issue with rising  S3 scores is the fact that only the negative outliersfrom all ORYX measures are counted in the S3 scoring.  [more]

What’s in a name? NPSG 01.01.01 Patient Identification

Happy New Year! As of January 1st, the 2009 NPSGs are in full force. When we’re talking about NPSG 01.01.01, the patient identification goal, the Joint Commission requires that prior to collecting specimens, giving medications or providing treatments to the patient, staff are to actively involve the patient (or family as appropriate) in the identification process. And, when patient reliability is an issue, and participation from the patient is not possible, the hospital is to designate a responsible caregiver for verification of identity. We suggest designation of the patient’s primary nurse as the “responsible caregiver”. [more]

CMS Issues Updated Interpretive Guidelines

The updated Interpretive Guidelines to the Conditions of Participation have been published by CMS and are available by accessing CMS_Interpretive Guidelines 2008-10-17 Complete IG for Hospitals. The Interpretive Guidelines (IG) is presented in a slightly different format and has been consolidated to allow for each of the elements to nest under the categories of the Conditions of Participation (meaning while there is a distinct standard for restraint and seclusion, for example, you’ll find this consolidated under the condition of Patient Rights.) [more]

Examining the 2009 Universal Protocol FAQ

If you haven’t read the FAQs for the Universal Protocol published on November 5, 2008, please do so before reading the rest of this message. The FAQ can be accessed on this page: http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/UniversalProtocol/. A few nuances to the FAQ struck our attention. [more]

CMS Clarifies Use of Standing Orders and Signing of Order Sets

CMS has clarified its position on the use of standing orders in hospitals. The use of standing orders must be documented as an order in the patient’s medical record and signed by the practitioner responsible for the care of the patient, but the timing of such documentation is not to be a barrier to effective emergency response, timely and necessary care, or other patient safety advances. This means a standing order can be implemented without the physician expressly providing the order at the time, and the order can be obtained at a later date. These standing orders must be approved by the medical staff, and CMS does voice concern about exceeding scope of practice, so it is advantageous to make sure the medical staff has approved the standing orders for use by qualified and competent care providers, with the licensed independent practitioner validating the standing order in writing as soon as practicable. Also CMS clarified Signatures on Order Sets saying the last page must be dated and signed and any changes to the order set (other than checking which boxes apply, indicating type of treatment) initialed by the physician. Standing Orders in Hospitals – Revisions to S&C Memoranda

2008 FAQ enhances requirements for Look Alike-Sound Alike Drug Management

In the 2008 (March 2008) FAQ regarding NPSG 3C managing Look Alike, Sound Alike medications. The FAQ requires that error (interchange error) prevention stragegies should occur at all phases of medication management. This would include procurement, storage, transcribing, ordering, dispensing and administration. The FAQ continues to say that in addition to interchange error protection, prevention methods should include differing strengths of drugs. Therefore, staff involved at all levels of medication management processes should know the error prevention stragegies put into place to protect against interchange and dosing errors. Previously, many organizations focused on the Pharmacy and the site of administration only. Now organizations are to expand their scope to assure prevention strategies are implemented at each step of the medication management processes.