Search Results for 'eyewash'

Crying my eyes out: The never-ending story of emergency eyewash equipment!

October seems to be shaping up into a “greatest hits” kind of month as we once again dig back into the closet of perennial findings—this week finds us in the realm of managing occupational exposure to chemicals.

With the information contained in the September issue of Perspectives, it looked like findings relating to hazardous materials and wastes (which were mostly related to eyewash stations) had dropped off the Top 10 list (it was the #9 most-frequently cited standard for 2018), which I saw as a good thing. Generally speaking, I’ve found that the knowledge-base of the surveyor corps relative to the management of occupational exposures to hazardous materials leaves a little bit to desire, and rather prone to over-interpretation of what does and what does not constitute an inappropriately managed risk. You could, of course, (and I certainly have) give voice to the thought that over-interpretation is something of a standard practice amongst the surveyors of the world and you’d get very little in the way of argument from me. But there are a couple of recent findings that kind of crystallized (at least for me), the intersection of over-interpretation and a limited knowledge of the practical/operational aspects of appropriate management of occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals.

So, we have the following:

  • A single container of bleach in a storage room becomes a finding of moderate risk because the pH level of bleach requires the installation of an eyewash station

Now, purely from a reasonable risk assessment standpoint (and in recognition of the very remote likelihood that the container of bleach is going to somehow vomit its contents), the mere presence/storage of a corrosive does not (in my mind) constitute a risk of occupational exposure. If someone is pouring the bleach into another container (which is not the case here—again, only storage), then the risk of occupational exposure comes into play. The image that I conjured up relative to this is the local grocery store—gallons upon gallons of bleach—and nary an eyewash in sight (and yes, while OSHA doesn’t really jump ugly relative to customer exposure, the risks to customer and in-house staff is probably about equal). I suppose the best course for a corrective action would be to remove the bleach and be done with it. That said, this seems a bit of a reach…

  • Two eyewash stations (one in a soiled utility room and one in a scope decontamination room) that were located at dirty sinks in these areas, increasing the risk of staff exposure to contamination

Now, my philosophy regarding the location of emergency eyewash equipment is that you want to install them in locations as close to the point of likely exposure as is possible/reasonable, which sometimes (maybe even often) means that you install them on the only sink in a soiled utility room, etc. And you do that because?!? You do that because, the emergency eyewash station is equipped with protective covers to ensure that the emergency eyewash does not get contaminated, so you can install them in the locations in which they would be of the greatest benefit in an emergency, which might very well be in a soiled location.

It seems that the mystery of eyewash stations will never be completely solved…

Time to bust a cap in your…eyewash station?!?

Howdy folks! A couple of quick items to warm the cockles of your heart as winter starts to make its arrival a little more obvious/foreboding (at least up here in the land of the New English) as we celebrate that most autumnal of days, All Hallows Eve (I’m writing this on All Hallows Eve Eve)…

The first item relates to some general safety considerations, mostly as a function of ensuring that the folks who rely on emergency equipment to work when there is an emergency are sufficiently prepared to ensure that happens. It seems that lately (though this is probably no more true than it usually is, but perhaps more noticeable of late) I’ve been running into a lot of emergency eyewash stations for which the protective caps are not in place. Now I know this is partially the result of too many eyewash stations in too many locations that don’t really need to have them (the reasoning behind the desire for eyewash stations seems to lean towards blood and body fluid splashes, for which we all know there is no specific requirement). At any rate, my concern is that, without the protective caps, the eyewash stations are capable of making the situation worse if someone flushes some sort of contaminant into their eyes because stuff got spilled/splashed/etc. on the “nekkid” eyewash stations. The same thing applies to making sure the caps are in place for the nozzles of the kitchen fire suppression system (nekkid nozzles—could be a band name!—can very quickly get gunked up with grease). We only need these things in the event of an emergency, but we need them to work correctly right away, not after someone wipes them off, etc. So, please remind the folks at point of care/point of service/point of culinary marvels to make sure those caps are in place at all times.

The other item relates to the recent changes in the fire safety management performance element that deals with your fire response plan. Please take a moment to review the response plan education process to ensure that you are capturing cooperation with firefighting authorities when (periodically) instructing staff and licensed independent practitioners. One of the ages-old survey techniques is to focus not so much on the time-honored compliance elements, but rather to poke around at what is new to the party, like cooperation with firefighting authorities (or 1135 waiver processes or continuity of operations plans or, I daresay, ligature risk assessments). It would seem that one of the primary directives of the survey process is to generate findings, so what better way to do that than to “pick” on the latest and (maybe not so) greatest.

Have a safe reorientation of the clocks!

Eyewash stations hinge on chemical use as opposed to a wholesale requirement

Eyewash stations are only required by OSHA in specific instances, and those instances are discerned through a review of the material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the chemicals being used.

If an MSDS indicates that first aid response to an eye exposure requires flushing for 15 or more minutes, then you are looking at an eyewash station. Anything less than 15 minutes, no eyewash is required.

If you remove the chemicals in question

Eyewash station use should tie into a risk assessment

When it comes to eyewash stations, the starting point really should be:
  1. An assessment of where you currently have eyewash stations, and
  2. A determination of whether the exposure risks warrant the continued presence of the eyewash stations
For instance, from an OSHA perspective, if there is a risk of exposure to caustic or corrosive materials (e.g., glutaraldehyde, acetic acid, etc.), then the use of an eyewash station as part of the first aid sequence is generally indicated.
A good place to check is on the MSDS of a material or substance. If the first aid section indicates flushing the eyes for 15-20 minutes, then that means you need an eyewash station.
On the other hand, with appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and engineering controls, exposures to bloodborne pathogens should be manageable without the need for eyewash stations.
In a broader sense, I recommend you focus your attention on the stuff that happens before you’d ever need an eyewash station: using less hazardous chemicals, enforcing the use of PPE, etc.

Responding to a reader’s comment about eyewash station citations

I read a comment posted by one of you to a blog entry of mine a while back dealing with OSHA requirements for eyewash stations. The poster asked whether anyone else had ever been cited by The Joint Commission for not having eyewash units installed in locations where staff members could be exposed to bodily fluids.
This person’s organization received a supplemental recommendation several years ago for not providing eyewash units in all patient care areas. The given reference was OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens standard, which was an erroneous reference, the commenter said.
That’s an interesting situation, to which my general response (or perhaps it’s really a specific response) is that I haven’t run into anyone who’s been cited for not having eyewash stations where there are blood and body fluid exposure risks.
However, I have seen folks getting cited for not inspecting eyewash stations according to their policy and for not having them in areas where there is a demonstrable risk of chemical exposures.
At any rate, if anyone out there does get cited for not having emergency eyewash stations in the event of blood and body fluid exposures, it would certainly be an opportunity to try out the post-survey clarification process.
The surveyors are not presumed to be infallible, nor should they be (they’re only human). If there’s a lack of understanding, either as a global concept or merely a function of how one operationalizes the results of risk assessments (did you really think that I would go on for this long without invoking the mighty risk assessment?), then it becomes our professional responsibility to point out that understanding gap to surveyors and Joint Commission powers that be.
By the way, thanks to the reader for posting his comment. Keep ’em coming, this blog is for everyone.

Start your stopwatch to help measure eyewash station needs

The topic of eyewash stations comes up a lot.

In general, OSHA requires eyewash stations in locations in which there is a risk of accidental exposure to corrosive or caustic materials.

There are definitely specific environments-including the food services, boiler rooms, high-level disinfection-where I would be looking for eyewash stations, but only after looking at the chemicals involved.

The need to have an eyewash station in close proximity can be ascertained by looking at the chemical’s first aid instructions, either on the container or on the MSDS. If the first aid information indicates that an exposure to the eyes requires flushing for 15 or more minutes, then you need to have an eyewash station.

If the first aid instructions do not indicate a 15-minute or longer flush after exposure, then you do not “need” to have an eyewash station–though nothing’s stopping you from installing one.

By the way, those lovely little wall-mounted plastic bottles do not meet the standard for emergency eyewash as would be required for conditions noted above.

Probably not the final word on outpatient clinic settings

Sometimes I have a difficult time finding a unifying “thread” for the weekly chronicle and other times the way forward is fairly clear. This week may be more towards the former, but I think I can tie things together with a little bit of judicious “bridging.”

First we’ll start with what can only be described as “old news,” though the topic (CMS continues to make frowny faces towards the various accrediting organizations, coupled with the odd glare or two) is as old as the hills. At any rate, if one were an accreditation organization (AO), one might look at the ongoing skirmishes ’twixt the Federales and their deemed status minions as an existential threat (the exact degree of the threat is tough to figure out: Can CMS “fire” all the AOs and still be able to ride herd on healthcare? I’m not so sure). It can’t be pleasant to be berated on a regular basis, reminded of one’s failings, etc., so the natural tendency would be to try to get out from underneath. And the one sure way of making that happen is to work towards generating lots and lots (and lots!) of findings, and if you can tie those findings to various levels of criticality, then you can demonstrate your value to the process. Certainly, the various AOs have generated a lot of findings within the hospital settings over the last few years and (at least for our friends at TJC) there’s been some branching out into the “field.”

One of the trends I’ve noticed as this “shift” has been occurring is a fair number of findings relating to eyewash stations  in all sorts of areas and I think a recently updated (June 26, 2020) TJC FAQ for hospital and hospital clinic settings may be instructive as a function of setting the stage (or the table—you pick) for increased focus on those instances in which surveyors feel you need an eyewash station and perhaps you do not have a risk assessment prepared that would indicate otherwise. As we have discussed in the past (you can find pretty much all of those mentions here), eyewash stations (or the lack thereof, of the care and feeding of) tend to generate findings, but (as long as you do the math) you only have to have them under certain very specific circumstances—circumstances with which surveyors are sometimes only passingly familiar.

That said, one other trendy thing I’ve noticed is that glutaraldehyde is starting to creep back into the healthcare safety landscape, which poses its own fair share of complexities when it comes to managing risks (some useful thoughts on that subject on Tim Richards’ blog). And sometimes, just sometimes, when one is discussing the far reaches of an organization, the creeping of something like glutaraldehyde can be much less noticeable than if it were under the white hot lights of the main campus (or the mothership, if you prefer). Sooooo, particularly for those of you with lots of offsite locations (or even only a few), keep an eye out for those funky things that “show up” at generally less than useful times. You might find out it’s the difference between survey success and having to write plans of correction for weeks on end…

Hope you are all staying safe and staying positive. It’s looking like the first wave of COVID-19 is not quite done with us (and I don’t think we can have a second wave until the first one is done), but I know you folks are keeping a lid on things: Keep up the good work!

Identifying issues and finding solutions…

…versus identifying issues and pointing fingers.

I think we can all agree that (at least for the moment) our friends in the regulatory survey services world have misplaced the location of their customers and, as a result, have become significantly more punitive in administering the survey process. Of course, the accreditation survey team always tells organizations that, despite the umpty-ump number of findings, they are a quality organization and really, this was a good survey. I have yet to hear of any instances in which the survey team “supported” anything other than a positive vibe, but it seems that, in growing numbers, that vibe is not really translating past the point of the exit conference.

Now, I know that it is not the role of the accreditation organizations to do anything more than identify deficiencies (I have hopes that a more consultative approach will re-emerge before too long, but I am not holding my breath), but what I keep bumping into are instances in which the folks (internal and external to an organization) charged with preparing organizations for survey are almost as punitive in their administration of the survey prep process. The purpose of environmental rounding/touring, etc., is to help folks become as prepared as possible and to identify strategies for sustaining compliance. It is not about the “gotcha,” with follow-up paperwork. My personal philosophy (as a safety professional in general, but certainly as a consultant) is that my obligation to the process is to help get things going in the right direction, even to the point of cleaning up a spill or picking something up off the floor while touring. Certainly, I can (and do) identify lots of things that need attention, because there are always lots of things to find that need attention (this goes back to my “no perfect buildings” philosophy; probably too much philosophy for so early in the year, but so be it). But I go into this having suffered at the hands of consultants (and others) who are not as interested in helping work through an issue to achieve some sort of sustainable solution.

As an example, I recently heard about an instance in which the environment of care rounding team had identified a resolution to a pesky issue (in this case, ensuring that specimen containers were appropriately labeled) but did not share that resolution with the entire organization. So last time, a “sticky” label was affixed to the container, but the label didn’t stick so well; this “failure mode” was communicated to the folks in infection control, but there was no immediate follow-up. So, next rounding activity, a specimen container to which a “sticky” label had been affixed was, in the local parlance (not really), nekkid in terms of labeling. Well, after the labeling issue had been cited, it was “revealed” that, after some consideration (may have been careful consideration, but less careful in the communication), it was determined that the containers would be stenciled in more permanent fashion. Interesting thing, the “finding” still required response, etc. even though the “finding” was the result in a communications misfire.

At any rate, as I think I’ve noted here before, there’s no regulatory statute that requires us to shoot ourselves in the foot, or, indeed, to engage in friendly fire. To my way of thinking, internally punitive surveying is not helpful and since we know the “real thing” isn’t particularly helpful (to healthcare organizations, at any rate), doesn’t it make more sense to work together towards sustainable compliance?

Quick closing question: While I was having some lab work done today, I noticed that the emergency eyewash station in the sink area was covered with a clear plastic bag. Has anyone out there in blogland encountered this or are practicing it? I’m thinking that this adds a step to activation of the eyewash station, but perhaps there’s a risk assessment that supports it. Just asking for a friend…

It appears that everything isn’t meant to be OK…

You may recall a few weeks back we were discussing some recent survey findings relative to the placement of eyewash stations once one has determined that one needs an eyewash station (or stations). At the time, my dream was to clarify those findings and have them vanish into the ether (which is pretty much where they belong). But alas, that dream crashed upon the rocks of an overreach—can’t say for sure if this signals a sea change or is based on a reluctance to overturn a judgement call in the field. The ruling from the home office read thusly (but not justly): “The organization must do a risk assessment to determine if substances that may be in the sink would not splash onto the person using the eyewash station and inadvertently be contaminated.”

And so, I guess we add an additional imponderable to the equation: How do we install the eyewash station close enough to the area of greatest risk without placing the eyewash in a location that could be adjudged to be too close to the risk area? I suppose the ultimate goal would be to try to remove the hazard entirely, but with all the focus on disinfection and the likelihood that whatever disinfectant in use is going to be firmly in the high-risk zone, that seems unlikely to win favor during survey. Is it possible to “sell” engineering controls to a surveyor that is looking to find things to cite? I think we can all agree that the use of PPE and other forms of engineering controls are probably never going to be the interventions we would hope for them to be, but it is often so difficult to protect folks from themselves.

That said, I suppose it wouldn’t be the worst idea to do a little global evaluation of your eyewash station locations (much like a conjunction function) and add yet another risk assessment to the mix. If you’ve got a survey coming up in the near future, it may save you some aggravation.

 

We are hope, despite the times: Steve Mac’s top 10 most troublesome EC challenges

First a quick (moderately revelatory) story: While traveling last week, I had the opportunity to see Creed II on the plane (I found it very entertaining, though somewhat reminiscent of another film—but no spoilers here). Interestingly enough, the image that stayed with me was during a scene on a maternity unit in a hospital where I observed a nicely obstructed fire extinguisher (there was some sort of unattended cart parked in front of the extinguisher). I guess that means I can never turn “this” (and you can call it what you will) off… but enough digression.

About a month or so ago, an organization with whom I had not worked before (they’re on the upcoming schedule) asked for a top 10 list of what I’ve seen as the most challenging physical environment standards, etc. I will admit to having been taken off guard a wee bit (I usually depend on others for top 10 lists), but then I figured it was probably about time that I put a little structure to all the various and sundry things that I’ve seen over the last decade or so.

To that end, here are Steve Mac’s Top 10 Things that will get you in the most trouble in the quickest amount of time (I don’t think there are any surprises, but feel free to disagree…):

Top 10 Critical Process Vulnerabilities – Physical Environment

  1. Inadequately mitigated ligature/safety risks in behavioral health environments
  2. Management of surgical and other procedural environments (temperature, humidity, air pressure relationships)
  3. Construction management process—lack of coordination, inconsistent implementation of risk management strategies
  4. ILSM policy/assessment/implementation—including “regular” LS deficiencies
  5. Management of hazardous materials risks, particularly those relating to occupational exposure (eyewash stations, monitoring, etc.)
  6. Life safety drawings (accuracy, completeness, etc.)
  7. Management of infection control risks in the environment (non-intact surfaces, expired product, high, intermediate and low-level disinfection)
  8. Management of contractors/vendors (documentation, activities, etc.)
  9. Effectiveness of surveillance rounds; integration of work order system, etc., to address compliance concerns
  10. Stewardship of the environment—participation of point-of-care/point-of-service staff in management of the environment.

Now I don’t know that there’s anything here that we haven’t covered in the past, but if you folks would like a more in-depth analysis of anything in the list above (or, indeed, anything else), please let me know. I suspect that I will be returning to this list from time to time (particularly during slow news weeks).