RSSRecent Articles

If you don’t signal, how will I know where you want to go? Emergency management and its discontents (Just What You Needed)!

Kind of a mixed bag this week, though it all fits under the heading of emergency management, so here goes nothing…

A few weeks ago, USA Today did a story on the preparedness levels of the United States based on an analysis of state-by-state metrics. The story was based on a study, the National Health Security Preparedness Index, prepared by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and covers a lot of ground relative to trends in preparedness, including governmental spending on preparedness and some other stuff. The reason I “noticed” this was the indication that my home state was “best prepared” for disasters, etc., but the overarching message was that, even in the face of some setbacks in individual regions, the nation continues to improve emergency preparedness. Of course, it being USA Today, there are color slides indicating where each state ranks among the fabulous 50, so if you thought there was no scorekeeping on this front…

OK, maybe not keeping score, but a certain accreditation agency is keeping an eye on all things relating to preparedness. In this blog post, Jim Kendig (field director for the Life Safety Code® surveyors at The Joint Commission, and a very knowledgeable fellow when it comes to this stuff) provides a really good overview of the Preparedness Index and describes it in terms of how the various pieces can (and do) fit together and provide the foundation for an effective emergency management program. I see no reason why we can’t expect something more of a deep dive in the coming survey cycle and I think you’ll find the information Jim shares to be really helpful.

As a final thought for this week, it is always the case that what constitutes a mass casualty incident varies from organization to organization, but if you want to catch a glimpse of how this gets framed within the context of one of the largest metropolitan areas on the planet, the Greater New York Hospital Association developed a Mass Casualty Incident Response Toolkit that you might find worth checking out. There’s a ton of information, tools/forms, and links to more tools/forms, etc., to review in this space, but I encourage you to give the materials a look-see. It does appear that the nature of what we can expect to show up at our collective front doors is shifting and anything that facilitates better positioning to deal with an emergency is worth our time and energies.

Ground Control to Major Compliance: EOC, baby!

As September brings around the unwinding of summah, it also brings around The Joint Commission’s annual state of compliance sessions in locations across the country, better known as Executive Briefings. And, one of the cornerstone communications resulting from the Briefings is the current state of compliance as a function of which standards have proved to be most problematic from an individual findings standpoint.

Yet again (with one exception, more on that in a moment), EOC/Life Safety standards stand astride the Top 10 list like some mythical colossus (the Colossus of Chicago?), spreading fear in the hearts of all that behold its countenance (OK, maybe not so much fear as a nasty case of reflux…).

You can find the Top 5 most frequently cited standards across the various accreditation programs; you’ll have to check out the September issue of Perspectives for the bigger compliance picture, which I would encourage you to do.

At any rate, what this tells us is that (for the most part) the singular compliance items that are most likely to occur (for example, we’ve already discussed the loaded sprinkler head hiding somewhere in your facility—way back in April) are still the ones they are most likely to find. According to the data, of the 688 hospitals surveyed in the first six months of 2019, 91% of the hospitals surveyed (626 hospitals) were cited for issues with sprinkler/extinguishment equipment—and that, my friends, is a lot of sprinkler loading. I won’t bore you with the details (I think everyone recognizes where the likely imperfections “live” in any organization), but (at least to me) it still looks like the survey process works best as a means of generating findings, no matter how inconsequential they might be in relation to the general safety of any organization. I have no doubt that somewhere in the mix of the Top 10 list, there are safety issues of significance (that goes back to the “no perfect buildings” concept), particularly in older facilities in which mechanical systems, etc. are reaching the end of their service life—I always admired Disney for establishing a replacement schedule that resulted in implementation before they had to. It’s like buying a new car and having the old one still on the road: Are you going to replace the engine, knowing that the floor is going to rust through (and yes, I know that some of you would, but I mean in general)? But if the car dies on the way to the dealer to pick up the new one, you’re not going to do anything but tow it to the junkyard. But we can’t do that with hospitals and it’s usually such a battle to get funding/approval for funding/etc. that you can get “stuck” piecing something together in order to keep caring for your patients. It sure as heck is not an ideal situation, but it can (and does) happen. Maintaining the care environment is a thankless, unforgiving, and relentless pursuit—therein is a lot of satisfaction, but also lots of antacid…

One interesting shift (and I think we’ve been wondering when it would happen) is the appearance of a second infection control (IC) standard, which deals with implementation of an organization’s IC plan. I personally have always counted the IC findings relating to the storage, disinfection, etc. of equipment as being an EOC standard in all but name, but I think we may (finally) be seeing the shift to how appropriately organizations are managing infection risks. According to Perspectives, 64% of the hospitals surveyed in the first six months of 2019 were cited for issues relating to implementation, but not sure how the details are skewing. Certainly, to at least some degree, implementation is “walking the talk,” so it may relate to the effectiveness of rounding, etc. Or, it may relate to practice observed at point-of-care/point-of-service. I think we can agree that nosocomial infections are something to avoid and perhaps this is where that focus begins—but it all happens (or doesn’t) in the environment, so don’t think for an instant that findings in the environment/Life Safety will go gentle into that good night. I think we’re here for the long haul…

Reusables vs. single-use: The next round in the World Series of Risk Assessments?

As summer starts its (hopefully) gradual fade into the record books and the marathon of the baseball season starts its kick to the finish line, it seems that we are (yet again) faced with some guidance from the federales that I think will be best served by having a risk assessment in your back pocket.

Over the past few years (truly, more than a few, but we can focus on the most recent past), there has been a lot of scrutiny regarding the management of endoscopes, including how much of a role clinical engineering might play in managing the scopes as devices, how to ensure effective processing of the scopes once they have been used, etc. And just the other day, I encountered an article discussing the FDA’s recommendation to begin transitioning to scopes with disposable parts, nominally to ensure the efficacy of the post-use processing process (don’t you just love a processing process!). You can find the meat and potatoes of the FDA’s recommendation here. I’d encourage you to read this very carefully as there is mention of process elements, such as the use of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) test strips to assess scope cleaning—a use that is not currently sanctioned by FDA—to the point that the FDA is asking facilities not to rely on the ATP test strips to assess scope cleaning. There’s some other stuff that is worth consideration, so (again), please check it out.

The recommendation does indicate (and, to a certain extent, provides for) a period of transition to the disposable scopes, but now that the proverbial horse is out of the barn, I think it is only a matter of time before our friends in the various accreditation organizations start digging into the transition process as a function of patient safety (I don’t think there’s any among us that would dispute this as a patient safety concern), particularly as to how we are keeping folks safe during the transition period. And how do we typically provide evidence of the process for mitigating risks? Why, it’s our old(er) friend the risk assessment process. I think it is crystal clear that this serves as yet another example of the collaborative process between infection control, clinical engineering, perioperative services—and I encourage you to make good use of the risk assessment process. Even more so, if you are scheduled for an accreditation survey any time in the next 12-18 months (until the use of single-use scope technology is more pervasive), I would get this on your to-do schedule as soon as possible. As with so many things, you may have lots of data to support that your existing procedures, etc., are not putting anyone at risk, but (as these things tend to devolve) we’ve already seen how a really (and I mean really, really) small incidence rate (that of risk de ligature) drive a veritable cornucopia of significantly painful survey findings. And there’s every reason to include this in the list of contenders for the next heavy duty survey focus area.

In a world of magnets and miracles: Shifting the sands of compliance

At the risk of engaging in non-sequiturial (which autocorrect keeps insisting should be non-equatorial) content, I want to touch on a couple of short items that came across my desk over the last couple of days. I don’t know that they specifically relate to each other, but I can imagine a sufficiently powerful pattern recognition program that could link the two (think really, really big picture).

First up, we have some conversation relative to CMS’ efforts to increase the validity of the process by which CMS oversees (or validates) the work of the various accreditation organizations (AO) as they engage in the deemed status survey process. Until recently, the CMS validation process involved a survey visit close on the heels of the AOs (typically within 60 days or so) to see how closely the completed survey met the expectations of CMS vis-à-vis the Conditions of Participation. Historically, there have always been gaps between what was found by the AOs and what was found by CMS, with a lot of pushback on the part of the AOs relative to the timing of things—healthcare organizations are, if nothing else, fluidity personified. So, in response to the timing pushback, CMS has started co-surveying with TJC in real time; so, instead of dealing with your usual complement of TJC surveyors, you also get to host—at the same time—a group of CMSers. Ostensibly, the purpose of the CMS team is to observe the survey efficacy of the Joint Commission team,  but I think you can see where what has never been a “pleasant” experience could really go sideways. I personally have not heard any tales of folks having experienced this type of event, but I feel certain that someone I know will be able to share some stories of daring do and horror-filled antics. Any takers? It would seem (based on a blog post from TJC) that some organizations have expressed gratitude for not having to go through two separate survey events, and there’s a general sense that the CMS/AO survey findings are of a piece, so I guess that’s a good thing. But somehow…

At any rate, at the moment, if your organization is going to have this extra special survey experience, there will be prior notification, but there appear to be plans afoot to end up at a point in which these extra special surveys will be completely unannounced. It also appears that moving in that direction will require some modification to the language in the Conditions of Participation that authorize the validation surveys. According to the blog, the current process is in place through federal FY 2020 (October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020), so I guess we’ll have to wait and see how things go.

To take this in a completely different direction (well, maybe not completely…) I came across an article providing some advice on conducting one-on-one meetings with staff. As a consultant, it’s been rather a while since I’ve had to administer one-on-one staff meetings, so this may be old hat to you folks with current operational oversight of line staff, but it did prompt me to think about past practices and I can see where this might be helpful in a lot of different ways. I am a firm believer in trying to make every encounter more useful and I think this might be a strategy worthy of your consideration. So, if you need something to read as we start the wind-down of summer (it’s the last week of August—how did that happen?!?), I think this would be worth your time (and please let me know if you think otherwise—any and all feedback is most appreciated!).

Have a safe and festive Labor Day!

Would you believe there’s nothing up my sleeve?: Protective measures

Caution: This is not a product endorsement, but rather an observation of a product that might, at times, sound a little endorse-y. I can be persuaded…

While working at a hospital somewhere in the United States, I was apprised of a product being installed that will (hopefully) facilitate securing doors that might not otherwise be secured, in the event of an active shooter or other threat that would require the establishment of a safe barricade. Effectively, the product is a metal wedge-shaped sleeve (hence the product name: Fighting Chance) that slides over the arm of a door closer and prevents the door from being opened.

At first encounter, I thought it was a pretty nifty idea (and still do), but I was curious about how one would be able to consistently operationalize the device from a practical standpoint: How do you make sure that you’ve got someone tall enough to be able to reach up and slide the sleeve over the arm? I’ve seen a lot of doors and door arms in my time and I can tell you (I’m about 5’ 6”) that there are some door arrangements for which I would have a very difficult time being able to reach the arm.

So, the question I have (and I will be happy to share the information) is if you are using this product (or even considering using this product), are you including provisions/consideration to assist the more diminutive members of your organization (maybe some sort of step stool stored in close proximity, perhaps something else—I know you folks are creative as all get out)? Have you drilled the used of these devices and found any other opportunities for improvement? I am a great admirer or simple technology and I do like the simplicity of the design—I’m just curious as to how it will play in the field.

I hope it’s a winner!

Don’t forget to leave room for amazement: The perils of occupational fatigue

If you’ll bear with me, friends, this week deals not so much with the harsh realities of our vocation, but with the hope that those harsh realities can be effectively managed.

One of the true blessings of my work as a consultant is the opportunity to change things up on a regular basis—meeting new people and seeing new places while still renewing acquaintances encountered on the journeys of the past 18 years. And, as I think about it, I do hope (at least some of the time) this blog provides you with some level of diversion, but occupational fatigue (aka work burnout) is more common than serves anyone’s benefit.

I am in the habit of collecting things that interest me, and sometimes I’ll encounter something of sufficient interest that I want to share it with you folks. In wandering around the internet in the wake of the anniversary of the first moon landing, I came across a blog post (written by Brad Stulberg) describing some ways of dealing with work burnout that I felt was worth sharing.

As with so many things that “occur” to me, it’s not so much the revelatory aspect of the piece (though there is that to some degree), but rather the “tone” of the article that really caught my attentions to the extent that I wanted to share this with you. It doesn’t necessarily relate to safety in a global sense (though I could make the case that it does relate to personal safety to a fair degree), but I think anything that can shift the direction of conversation, even for the briefest of moments, is time well spent.

So, a short one this week, but that should give you some time to seek out a little amazement—you can never have too much magic in your life!

Maybe there’s a hole in there somewhere: Keeping your critical equipment running!

An interesting line of questioning is emerging in some recent survey activity (mostly during state visits, but the accreditation organizations are moving in this direction, particularly those with a focus on ISO processes) relates to the management of “high mortality” utility systems components, particularly emergency power supply system parts. If you look at this as a function of high reliability, ensuring that you have close to immediate access to a means of repairing those things that are most likely to break (and I suspect that everyone out there in the reading audience know which of your utility systems are most likely to give you fits—from experience, elevators always seem to figure in on that count).

I think in most instances it would require some level of working with your service providers to identify the things that are most likely to go wrong and then to set up a process for ensuring ready access to parts and service. Let’s face it, there are few more angst-filled moments than when you have to tell your boss that a critical piece of equipment is going to be down because parts need to be ordered, etc. And I don’t know of too many service vendors that are maintaining a broad-range of replacement parts, etc. on their shelves (I’m sure there are some and that’s great for you if they “live” in your neighborhood); inventory can be an expensive undertaking. But maybe there’s a way to build that into your next service contract—something to think about—your incumbent is probably going to have the most specific failure data relative to your equipment, but I would think there are sufficient commonalities of systems and equipment to allow for competitive proposals if you choose to go that route.

Some other contractual considerations (and this is more on the compliance front than anything, but still)—a “hard” touch whenever folks are onsite servicing equipment—at the very least, they can let you know if they see anything that might prove troublesome, so you don’t have to hunt for it when the paperwork arrives (hopefully sooner rather than later—that’s another contractual consideration—turnaround time for service reports/records). I don’t know that we’ll ever have enough granularity of data from the regulatory folks, but I am absolutely convinced (based on what I’ve seen) that the reason that findings in and around fire safety (and other) systems documentation relates to stuff being buried in vendor reports: the “classic” smoke detector that didn’t get tested or the heat detector in an elevator shaft that someone terms “inaccessible.” We (as a collective) are on the hook for ensuring that 100% of your devices and equipment are inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with code and regulation. Our vendors really don’t have any “skin” in the game.

I’m sure this is all rather self-evident to you folks, but where I’m sitting at the moment, there’s not a lot of “new” stuff floating around and it was a miserable rainy day, so this is what the connection of head and fingers conjured up.

Like water for opportunistic organisms: Protecting patients through utility systems

As a wise individual once noted, “water always wins” (at risk of betraying my nerd status, you can find the entire quote here), and it seems like water in its numerous forms is giving facilities professionals a run for their money this year. From mold in an OR in the Northwest to the constant battle (or so it seems) with Legionella prevention, this is as challenging a time as I can recall for facilities. And that doesn’t even take into account the ongoing impact of minor intrusions—leaks, condensation, overflowing toilets—it is an almost endless list of troubles.

My intent was to provide the above as information, with my usual encouragement to leverage point-of-care/point-of-service staff in the early identification of trouble spots, but I’m also thinking that perhaps someone out there in the field has been able to develop an effective plan for the proactive management of water woes. Certainly, I know of folks with fairly predictable “rainy seasons” and then there are those locations in which rain is a constant threat, not to mention the intrusion of humidity by various (and sometimes nefarious) means. So, what do you do that works (recognizing that this is not a one size fits all proposition)? Do you have any useful/effective strategies you can share with the blogosphere? I generally only hear about stuff that doesn’t work, so it would be a treat indeed to tout someone’s intuitive brilliance.

As a final note for this week, those of your laboring under the yoke of TJC accreditation might do well to give the August issue of Perspectives a look (it’s become less of a regularly useful read for me, but every once in a while). In the Consistent Interpretation column/article, there’s a lot of discussion (under the guise of the Infection Control standards) of PPE use/availability/education, etc. Again, the findings are falling under the IC standards from a past survey result standpoint, but I don’t think it’s a stretch for some (or almost any) of these to be applied as Hazardous Materials & Wastes Management findings. Again, not everything applies, but I think if we’ve learned nothing else over the years, it’s the funky application of survey concepts from one are of scrutiny to another. Stranger things have happened…

Try to keep things cool over the second half of the summer!

People get ready: There’s a (survey) train a-coming!

When it comes right down to it, I think it is nigh on impossible to have access to too many resources or, indeed, to have access to too many perspectives on the various and sundry processes that make up our little EOC world (OK, maybe not so little), so I’m always on the lookout for stuff that I think might be worth sharing with you folks. (It’s one way I’ve managed to not run out of things to say over the past 600+ weeks since I started this journey.)

Our good friends over at ASHE’s Health Facilities Management magazine recently published an article describing some of the ways facilities and safety professionals can effectively manage the accreditation process, primarily as a function of survey preparedness/readiness. I don’t know that there was anything of great surprise contained therein (with the important note that surveying hospitals is pretty much my life’s work, at least at the moment), but I think the authors did a nice job of providing an overview of the survey process with some key information points that may give you a “leg up” on your next survey.

The one thing we “know” is that we really don’t know when they’re coming next, so the general concept of continuous survey readiness is one that really needs to be taken to heart. But one of the key components of which you need to be mindful is that CMS is definitely ratcheting up on the “looking over the shoulder” aspect of the validation survey process. Where previously, CMS would conduct a validation of survey of the various accreditation organizations within 60 days of the accreditation survey activity, now CMS resources are observing the accreditation organization process as it happens. At the moment, any organization encountering the “enhanced” (my characterization) survey process are notified ahead of time, so you can do a little planning (not sure how much notice is given—if anyone out there can shed some light, based on experience, I’d love to hear from you). But there will come a time when it will be a (more or less) complete surprise!

At any rate, if you want to read about the opening salvo in this little endeavor, you can find it here, and the latest news on this front can be found here, which includes a link to the proposed rule change that deals with changes of ownership, etc. of accreditation organizations. Not very exciting stuff…yet! But I think the pendulum is going to continue swinging in the direction of more oversight (and probably, intervention) for the next little while…

In the realm of possibility: More listening, less posturing!

An interesting anomaly that I encounter periodically is the time-honored “first opinion,” particularly when it exists outside of a second opinion. All too often I hear clients tell me that  “X told us we have to do something a particular way,” often with a wake of disruption because whatever strategy, etc., that was identified didn’t take into full consideration elements of organizational culture, resources, practice, etc. But what I don’t understand is when I look at Environment of Care committee minutes, etc., I don’t see any discussion about whether the recommendation(s) were useful, germane, etc., to appropriately manage whatever the condition might be. I think it is very important to use any survey activity (regulatory, consultative) as an opportunity to identify best practices and ensure that policy and practice are in alignment. That way, you’ll have some experience in being able to sort out what is truly required from a regulatory perspective and what is solely in the land of surveyor interpretation.

In all the years I’ve been involved in healthcare safety, the one defining truth I’ve found is that compliance is rarely a black and white endeavor. And while I absolutely understand that managing anything as a “black and white” is a whole lot easier to police, from an operational standpoint, absolutes (either positive or negative) are not always easily, or practically, implemented.

The other dynamic is (and this is very much the case with response to regulatory surveys) that often we “over-promise,” particularly in terms of frequency of monitoring. Don’t set yourself up for failure, for example, by indicating in a corrective action plan that there will be weekly inspections of electrical panels for inappropriately configured circuit breakers. Unless you know that folks are mucking around in the panels on a frequent basis, is there really a compelling reason to embrace an inspection frequency that is not a regulatory requirement? I would tend to think: Not so much.

As we have established beyond any reasonable doubt, there will always (always, always, always) be imperfections in the environment, but don’t go crazy trying to chase all these things yourself (or have your staff do the chasing). As I’ve said any number of times (before any number of audiences), all this stuff “lives” at the point of care/point of service and if you can’t get the folks that “live” in those areas to help feed the gaping maw of work order system, you are managing a process that is not as efficient as it might otherwise be. With the ongoing impact of the “do more with less” mantra, it’s not so much about working smarter (though there is certainly an element of that), but about working collaboratively. Everyone is caregiver—everyone is a steward of the environment—and by judicious application of only what is actually required by code and/or regulation, you can start to break down the barriers between mutually assured noncompliance and an environment that appropriately supports care. Compliance is the byproduct of consistently doing the right thing.