August 27, 2013 | | Comments 1
Print This Post
Email This Post

Prioritize this…

During a recent survey, an interesting question was posed to the folks in Facilities, a question more than interesting enough to bring to your attention. The folks were asked to produce a policy that describes how they prioritize corrective maintenance work orders and they, in turn, asked me if I had such a thing. In my infinitely pithy response protocol, I indicated that I was not in the habit of collecting materials that are not required by regulatory standard. Now, I’m still not sure what the context of the question might have been (I will be visiting with these folks in the not too distant future and I plan on asking about the contextual applications of such a request), but it did give me cause to ponder the broader implications of the question.

I feel quite confident that developing a simple ranking scheme would be something that you could implement without having to go the whole policy route (I am personally no big fan of policies—they tend to be more complicated than they need to be and it’s frequently tougher to follow a policy 100% of the time, which is pretty much where the expectation bar is set during survey). I think something along the lines of:

Priority 1 – Immediate Threat to Health/Safety

Priority 2 – Direct Impact on Patient Care

Priority 3 – Indirect Impact on Patient Care

Priority 4 – No patient care impact

Priority 5 – Routine repairs

would work pretty well under most, if perhaps not all, circumstances. The circumstance I can “see” that might not quite lend itself to a specific hierarchy is when you have to run things on a “first come, first served” basis. Now I recognize that since our workforces are incredibly nimble (unlike regulatory agencies and the like), we can re-prioritize things based on their impact on important processes, so the question I keep coming back to is how can a policy ever truly reflect the complexities of such a process without somehow ending up with an “out of compliance with your policy” situation? This process works (or I guess in some instances, doesn’t) because of the competence of the staff involved with the process. I don’t see where a policy gets you that, but what do I know?

Entry Information

Filed Under: The Joint Commission

Tags:

Steve MacArthur About the Author: Steve MacArthur is a safety consultant with The Greeley Company in Danvers, Mass. He brings more than 30 years of healthcare management and consulting experience to his work with hospitals, physician offices, and ambulatory care facilities across the country. He is the author of HCPro's Hospital Safety Director's Handbook and is contributing editor for Briefings on Hospital Safety. Contact Steve at stevemacsafetyspace@gmail.com.

RSSComments: 1  |  Post a Comment  |  Trackback URL

  1. I noticed in the Joint Commission Standard LS.01.01.01 EP2 states that If the LS drawings don’t include the following items at a minimum, you are at risk of getting scored for not maintaining a current SOC:
    – Legend with key of symbols/colors used on drawings depicting rated barriers, suites, hazardous areas.
    – Rated wall locations
    – Hazardous Areas
    – Suite boundaries – including square footages
    – Smoke compartment boundaries and square footages
    – References for any equivalencies that have been granted

    After checking my offical LS drawings for my hospital which opened in 2003 that they show the location of Hazardous Hold & Infectious Waste areas on our back dock, but nothing in the hospital proper. I’m wondering if anyone has had any recent experience with TJC Surveyors on this this point?

RSSPost a Comment  |  Trackback URL

*