Steve MacArthur is a safety consultant based in Bridgewater, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
In the never-ending pursuit of the effective management of risks associated with healthcare-acquired infections (HAI) comes a new study that begs the question: How clean is your robot? Back in October of last year (don’t know how I missed this one in the news feed…), the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) released the results of a study indicating that the (at least at the moment) complete sanitation of robotic instruments is virtually impossible when compared to “ordinary” instruments. I don’t know that I had given the subject a great deal of consideration, but, at least on the face of it, I can see where there are probably whole lot more nooks and crannies, etc., that could potentially become contaminated during a procedure. The article speaks of greater protein residue and lower cleaning efficacy (a reported 97.6% efficacy rate for the ‘bots, as opposed to the 99.1% for ordinary instruments). It would seem that researchers suggest that it might be necessary to establish new cleaning standards that use repeated measurements of residual protein instead of just taking one measurement after cleaning. The article doesn’t talk about what cleaning methods were observed, so I’m presuming that the typical methodologies were employed, though I’m also thinking that some of the larger portions of the bots end up staying in the procedure rooms, and I’m thinking that when the stuff starts flying, that’s a tough thing to clean. Maybe there’s an application for the use of UV radiation in these types of situations. At any rate, I guess we can file this one under the “you never know what’s going to catch your eye” category, but it may be enough of a subject to prompt a survey question or two about the efficacy of the process.
On the FAQ front, the folks in Chicago have uploaded one that addresses patient-use refrigerators. Not wanting to be a spoiler (or “spoilah” as it is sometimes uttered in Bawston), but if you wanted to guess that there might be an element of risk assessment in the mix, I, for one, would make no move to disabuse you of that notion. I guess the more things get updated, the greater the likelihood that certain themes will manifest themselves over, and over, and over, and over…
In other news, guess we need to think about being a little more careful about what we purchase during those bake sales… I don’t know if you saw the piece last week about a couple of folks at a hospital in NC falling prey to some cannabis-containing baked goods. As events unfolded, the police ended up getting involved, etc., though no charges are to be filed (no drugs in the baker’s possession—I guess everything went into the batter), but I guess it does point out that we’re never too far away from Woodstock. I guess it’s time to update the “don’t take the brown acid” to “don’t take the brownies without a pedigree.” I wonder how this would play on the OSHA 300 log next year?
Or extend your hand?
First up, as a general rule of thumb (which could be one of the pointed fingers represented above, unless you don’t think a thumb is a finger), when CMS identifies an implementation date that is in the future, I think that we can safely work towards being in full compliance with whatever the Cs are implementing—on that implementation date. Apparently there’s been enough confusion (not really sure who may or may not have been confused, but sometimes it’s like that) for CMS to issue something of a clarification as to what is expected to be in place by November 15, 2017, which means education and exercises (and any other pesky items in your EM program that didn’t quite synch up with the final rule on emergency preparedness for healthcare organizations). Since this is very much brave new world territory when it comes to how (though perhaps the correct term would be “how painfully”) CMS is going to administer the final rule as a function of the survey process. I think it initially, unless we hear something very specific otherwise, means that we need to be prepared to meet the full intent of the language (making sure that you have trained/educated “all” staff; making sure that you participated in a community-wide exercise of some level of complexity) until these things start to sort out. My gut tells me that if they were going to engage in any more exculpatory/explanatory/clarifying communications, it would have been included in the above-noted transmission. And while I have little doubt that there will be some variability (states do not necessarily coordinate response) as to how this all pans out in the field, the education of “all” staff and participation in the communitywide exercise deal seem to be pretty inviolable. Certainly there have been instances in the past in which healthcare organizations have struggled to coordinate exercises with the local community(s), but my fear is that if you fall short on this, you will need to have a very compelling case of why you weren’t able to pull off a coordinated exercise. Community finances and fiscal years and local emergency response hegemony are all contributing factors, to be sure, but where you could “sell” that as a reason for not dancing with the locals to some of the accreditation organizations, I’m thinking that (as is usually the case) reasonableness and understanding might not be the highlights of any discussion with the feds and those that survey on their behalf. From what I’ve seen in the field, when it comes to CMS and the survey process, you are either in compliance or you are not in compliance and there is very little gray in between. Community drill done—compliant! Community drill not done—not compliant! Wouldn’t it be nice if life were always that simple?
At any rate, just to use this a reminder that the first anniversary of the 2012 Life Safety Code® is coming up—make sure you get all that annual testing and such out of the way—and don’t forget to make sure that all your fire alarm and suppression system documentation includes the correct version of the applicable NFPA code used for testing. I am dearly hoping to retire EC.02.03.05 from the most frequently cited standards ranks and while I fear the worst with this change. (To my mind, getting tagged for having the wrong NFPA year on the documentation would pretty much suck—please excuse my coarse language—but sucking is exactly what that type of finding would do.)
I’ve been watching this whole thing unfold for a really long time and I continue to be curious as to when the subject of managing workplace violence moves over into the survey of the physical environment. I think that, as an industry, we are doing a better job of this, perhaps as much as a function of identifying the component issues and working them through collaboratively as anything, but I don’t know that the data necessarily supports my optimistic outlook on the subject. One think I can say is that our friends at the Occupational Safety & Health Administration are going to be closing out the comment period soon (April 6, to be exact) on whether or not they need to establish an OSHA standard relative to preventing violence in healthcare and social assistance—if you have something to add to the conversation, I would encourage you to do so.
I do think that there are always opportunities to more carefully/thoughtfully/comprehensively prepare the folks on the front lines as they deal with ever greater volumes of at-risk patients (a rising tide that shows little or no sign of abating any time soon). They are, after all, the ones that have to enforce the “law,” sometimes in the face of overwhelming mental decompensation on the part of patients, family members, etc. As an additional item for your workplace violence toolbox, the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management has developed a risk assessment tool (with a very full resource list at the end) to help you identify improvement opportunities in your management of workplace violence. As I think we all know by now, a cookie-cutter approach rarely results in a demonstrably effective program, but what I like about the tool is it prompts you to ask questions that don’t always have a correct or incorrect response, but rather to ask questions about what happens in your “house.”
This topic somehow brings to mind some thoughts I had recently relative to the recalcitrance of some of my fellow travelers (meaning folks I encounter while traveling and not those that might have been encountered during the era of McCarthyism…) when it comes to following the directions of the TSA folks or other “gatekeepers” who keep things moving in an orderly fashion. I have seen folks in suit and tie pitch an absolute fit because they couldn’t skip to head of the line, had three carry-on bags instead of the allowed two, or had liquids in excess of what is allowed. I understand being a little embarrassed in the moment for the bag thing or the liquid thing, but to give the person who identified the issue a hard time makes no sense to me. And I think that sometimes our frontline staff fall victim to this type of interaction and have to suffer the consequences of an unhinged (OK, that may be a little hyperbolic, but I suspect you know what I mean) patron—even if they don’t have to endure someone taking a swing at them during these moments of tension. There was a day when the customer was always right, but now far too often, the customer is nothing more than an entitled bully and we have to make sure that our folks know we have their backs.
It seems so perfect…
A couple of somewhat disparate, but important, items for your consideration this week. I’m still somewhat fixated on how the survey process is going to manifest itself (regardless of which accrediting organization is doing the checking—including the feds). There are one or two clues to be had at the moment and I am most hopeful that the reason there is so little information coming out of the survey trenches is because there have been minimal change of a drastic nature/impact.
So, on to the discussion. As noted above, while the topics of conversation are indeed somewhat disparate, they do share a common theme—perhaps the most common theme of recent years (not to mention the most common theme of this space): the hegemony of the risk assessment. The topics: management of the behavioral health physical environment, and the risk assessment of systems and equipment indicated by NFPA 99-2012 Health Care Facilities Code. Fortunately, there are resources available to assist you in these endeavors—more on those in a moment.
For the management of the behavioral health physical environment, it does appear that our good friends in Chicago are making the most use of their bully pulpit in this regard. Health Facilities Management had an interesting article outlining the focus that would be well worth your time to check out if you have not already done so. I can tell you with absolute certainty that you need to have all your ducks in a row relative to this issue: risks identified, mitigation strategies implemented, staff educated, maybe some data analysis. As near as I can tell, not having had an “event” in this regard is probably not going to be enough to dissuade a surveyor if they think that they’ve found a risk you either missed or they feel is not being properly managed. If I have said this once, I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve said it (if I had a dollar for every time…): It is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to provide a completely risk-free environment, so there will always be risks to be managed. It is the nature of the places in which we care for patients that there is a never-ending supply of risky things for which we need to have appropriate management strategies. And I guess one risk we need to add to the mix are those pesky surveyors that somehow have gotten it in to their heads that there is such a thing as a risk-free environment. Appropriate care is a proactive/interactive undertaking. We don’t wait for things to happen; we manage things as we go, which is (really) all we can do.
As to the risk assessment of systems and equipment, as we near the first anniversary of the adoption of the 2012 edition of the Life Safety Code® (LSC) (inclusive of the 2012 edition of NFPA 99), the question is starting to be raised during CMS surveys relative to the risk assessment process (and work product) indicated in Chapter 4 Fundamentals (4.2 is the reference point) and speaks of “a defined risk assessment procedure.” I would imagine that there’s going to be some self-determination going on as to how often one would have to revisit the assessment, but it does appear that folks would be well-served by completing the initial go-through before we get too much closer to July. But good news if you’ve been dawdling or otherwise unsure of how best to proceed: our friends at the American Society for Healthcare Engineering have developed a tool to assist in managing the risk assessment process and you can find it here. I think you will find that the initial run-through (as is frequently the case with new stuff) may take a little bit of time to get through. (In your heart of hearts, you know how complex your building is, so think of this as an opportunity to help educate your organization as to how all those moving parts work together to result in a cohesive whole.)
These things have a habit of spreading very quickly in the survey world, so I would encourage you to keep at it if you’ve already started or get going if you haven’t. Even if you don’t have an immediately pending survey, a lot of this stuff is going to be traceable back to your previous survey and with that first anniversary of the LSC adoption rapidly approaching, better to have this done than not.
As we mark the passing of yet another (couple of) pop culture icon(s), I’m feeling somewhat reflective as I place fingers to keyboard (but only somewhat). As I reflect on the potential import of Sentinel Event Alert #57 and the essential role of leadership, one of the common themes that I can conjure up in this regard has a lot to do with the willingness/freedom of the “generic” Environment of Care/Safety program to air the organization’s safety-related (for lack of a better term—if you have a better one that’s not really PC, send it on) dirty laundry (kick ’em when they’re up, kick ’em when they’re down). I’ve seen a spate of folks getting into difficulties with CMS because they were not able to demonstrate/document the management of safety shortfalls as a function of reporting those shortfalls up to the top of their organization in a truly meaningful way. As safety professionals, you really can’t shy away from those difficult conversations with leadership—leaky roofs that are literally putting patients and staff at risk (unless you are doing incredibly vigorous inspections above the ceiling—or even under those pesky sinks); HVAC systems that are being tasked with providing environmental conditions for which the equipment was never designed; charging folks with conducting risk assessments in their areas…perhaps the impact of reduced humidity on surgical equipment. There’s a lot of possibilities—and a lot of possibility for you to feel the jackboots of an unhappy surveyor. One of the responsibilities of leaders, particularly mid-level leaders—and ain’t that all of us—is to work things through to the extent possible and then to fearlessly (not recklessly) escalate whatever the issue might be, to the top of the organization.
I was recently having a conversation with my sister about an unrelated topic when we started discussing the subtle (OK, maybe not so subtle) differences between two of my favorite “C” words: commitment and convenience. My rule of thumb is that convenience can never enter the safety equation at the expense of commitment (I suppose compliance works as well for this) and all too often I see (and I suspect you do, too) instances in which somebody did something they shouldn’t have because to do the right thing was less convenient than doing the wrong (or incorrect) thing. Just last week, I was in an MRI suite in which there were three (count ’em: 1, 2, 3) unsecured oxygen cylinders standing (and I do mean standing) in the MRI control right across the (open) door from the MRI. There was nobody around at the moment and I thought if there was a tremor of any magnitude (and I will say that I was in a place that is no stranger to the gyrations of the earth’s crust) and those puppies hit the deck, well, let’s just say that there would have a pretty expensive equipment replacement process in the not-too-distant future. The question I keep coming back to is this: who thinks that that is a good idea? I know that recent times have been a struggle relative to segregation of full and not full cylinders, but I thought we had really turned a corner on properly securing cylinders. These are the times that try a person’s soul: tell Tchaikovsky the news! Compliance ≠ Convenience…most of the time.
Or, oh me of little faith…
Another somewhat hodgepodge-ish coverage of sundry and assorted niceties this week. For some reason, this week has resulted in a lot of ideas flying around in my noggin (I suspect you might have weeks like that too, from time to time), but I think there’s a sufficiently common theme for these to hang together. Hopefully some level of cogent thought will hold sway…
First up, a discussion about topics relating to cleaning, and by extension, cleanliness. Health Facilities Management recently published an article regarding a three-year study aimed at identifying ways of improving patient room cleaning (my philosophy on that is that we need to consider more than just the cleaning of patient rooms, but more on that in a bit). The article covers some of the process breakdowns observed during the study, and speaks to the inclusion of housekeeping staff in unit meetings, etc., to enhance the sense of the importance of their roles in the process of providing care to the patient by making sure the environment is clean. I think you folks know that my primary background is in the EVS (from the EVS world?) and I have never needed to be “sold” on the importance of the frontline housekeeping staff in supporting the care environment. I know from experience that it’s a tough job and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is way more stuff in the typical patient room to clean than their used to be. (I only had to periodically dust off the abacus, etc.) The article provides some interesting data on the cleaning of various surfaces in the room, but I’ll let you see those for yourself. In looking at the data, it does make me ponder how much of a leap of faith it is to leave a restroom without having a paper towel (or some such) in hand to twist the ol’ door knob. I just can’t bring myself to stride right out without a thought in the world—but I see folks do that all the time and only about half of them wash their hands…
One of the things I’ve been seeing in survey country is a focus on what I will call the concept of the patient-ready room; this goes beyond the regimen of daily cleaning of surfaces, etc., and gets to the land of discharge cleaning, etc. I think one of the key conversations you can have in your organization is to figure out what a “patient-ready room” means and to start educating folks. Some things to consider: making sure the waste containers are empty; making sure that everything in the room works (just as you would yip if you had a hotel room where stuff wasn’t working properly—or at least I hope you would yip); making sure there are no stained ceiling tiles, etc. Again, this room is going to be somebody’s home—it may only be for a day or so—but think about someone flat on their back and only having the TV and that stain on the ceiling to look at. And they’re probably not going to say anything while they’re staying with you (I suspect that most folks are just to amped up about being there to speak up much), but they may very well remember that ceiling tile if they get a satisfaction survey. And don’t get me started about schmutz on the floor or on the bed rails; I see it happen far too often and I don’t know if too many organizations that can’t do a little better with that.
As a final thought in this realm, I know a lot of folks have secured the areas under sinks to prevent storage, etc. If your organization prohibits under-sink storage, it’s probably the simplest solution to keeping them (whoever “them” might) out. But I ask you this: how often are you opening up those areas to see what’s going on? It seems like lately I’ve been running into a fair number of conditions bordering on Roquefort—or perhaps a Gorgonzola or Stilton. Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean there isn’t something growing under those pesky sinks—and if the water intrusion isn’t enough to leak down below, you may have no reason to look. But I’m thinking you might want to think about thinking about setting that up as a process. Just sayin’…
Last week we touched upon the official adoption of a handful of the Tentative Interim Agreements (TIA) issued through NFPA as a function of the ongoing evolution of the 2012 edition of the Life Safety Code® (LSC). At this point, it is really difficult to figure out what is going to be important relative to compliance survey activities and what is not, so I think a brief description of each makes (almost too much) sense. So, in no particular order (other than numerical…):
- TIA #1 basically updates the table that provides the specifications for the Minimum Fire Protection Ratings for Opening Protectives in Fire Resistance-Rated Assemblies and Fire-Rated Glazing Markings (you can find the TIA here). I think it’s worth studying up on the specific elements—and perhaps worth sharing with the folks “managing” your life safety drawings if you’ve contracted with somebody external to the organization. I can tell you from personal experience that architects are sometimes not as familiar with the intricacies of the LSC—particularly the stuff that can cause heartburn during surveys. I think we can reasonably anticipate a little more attention being paid to the opening protectives and the like (what, you thought it couldn’t get any worse?), and I suspect that this is going to be valuable information to have in your pocket.
- TIA #2 mostly covers cooking facilities that are open to the corridor; there are a lot of interesting elements and I think a lot of you will have every reason to be thankful that this doesn’t apply to staff break rooms and lounges, though it could potentially be a source of angst around the holidays, depending on where folks are preparing food. If you get a literalist surveyor, those pesky slow cookers, portable grills, and other buffet equipment could become a point of contention unless they are in a space off the corridor. You can find the whole chapter and verse here.
- Finally, TIA #4 (there are other TIAs for the 2012 LSC, but these are the three specific to healthcare) appears to provide a little bit of flexibility relative to special locking arrangements based on protective safety measures for patients as a function of protection throughout the building by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 188.8.131.52. Originally, this section of the LSC referenced 184.108.40.206 which doesn’t provide much in the way of consideration for those instances (in Type I and Type II construction) where an AHJ has prohibited sprinklers. In that case, approved alternative protection measures shall be permitted to be substituted for sprinkler protection in specified areas without causing a building to be classified as non-sprinklered. You can find the details of the TIA here.
I suppose before I move on, I should note that you’re probably going to want to dig out your copy of the 2012 LSC when looking these over.
As a quick wrap-up, last week The Joint Commission issued Sentinel Event Alert #57 regarding the essential role of leadership in developing a safety culture (some initial info can be found here). While I would be the last person to accuse anyone of belaboring the obvious (being a virtual Rhodes Scholar in that type of endeavor myself), I cannot help but think that this might not be quite as earth-shattering an issuance as might be supposed by the folks in Chicago. At the very least, I guess this represents at least one more opportunity to drag organizational leadership into the safety fray. So, my question for you today (and I suspect I will have more to say on this subject over the next little while—especially as we start to see this issue monitored/validated during survey) is what steps has your organization taken to reduce intimidation and punitive aspects of the culture. I’m reasonably certain that everyone is working on this to one degree or another, but I am curious as to what type of stuff is being experienced in the field. Again, more to come, I’m sure…
…when you don’t know the reason…
Some Joint Commission goodness for your regulatory pleasure!
For those of you in the audience that make use of the online version of the Accreditation Manual, I would implore you to make sure that when you are reviewing standards and performance elements that you are using the most current versions of the requirements. I think we can anticipate that things are going to be coming fast and furious over the next few months as the engineering folks at TJC start to turn the great ship around so it is in accordance with the requirements of the 2012 edition of just about everything, as well as reflecting the CMS Conditions of Participation. To highlight that change, one example is the requirement for the testing of the fire alarm equipment for notifying off-site fire responders (decorum prevents me from identifying the specific standard and performance element, but I can think of at least 02.03.05.5 things that might serve as placeholders, but I digress); the January 1, 2017 version of the standards indicates that this is to occur at a quarterly frequency (which is what we’ve been living with for quite some time), but the January 9, 2017 version indicates that this is to occur on an annual basis, based on the 2010 edition of NFPA 72. In looking at the 2010 edition of NFPA 72, it would appear that annual testing is the target, but I think this speaks to the amount of shifting that’s going to be occurring and the potential (I don’t know that I would go so far as to call it a likelihood, but it’s getting there) for some miscommunications along the way. At any rate, if you use the online tool (I do—it is very useful), make sure that you use the most current version. Of course, it might be helpful to move the older versions to some sort of archived format, but that’s probably not going to happen any time soon.
Speaking of updates, last week also revealed additional standards changes that will be taking effect July 1, 2017 (get the detailed skinny here). Among the anticipated changes are the official invocation of NFPA 99 as guidance for the management of risk; some tweaking of the language regarding Alternative Equipment Management (AEM) program elements, including the abolition (?!?) of the 90% target for PM completion and replacing it with the very much stricter 100% completion rate (make sure you clearly define those completion parameters!); expansion of the ILSM policy requirements to include the management of Life Safety Code® deficiencies that are not immediately corrected during survey (you really have to look at the survey process as a FIFI—Find It, Fix It!—exercise); the (more or less) official adoption of Tentative Interim Agreements (TIA) 1, 2, and 4 (more on those over the next couple of weeks) as a function of managing fire barriers, smoke barriers, and egress for healthcare occupancies; and, the next (and perhaps final) nail in the coffin of being able to sedate patients in business occupancies (also to be covered as we move into the spring accreditation season). I trust that some of this will be illuminated in the upcoming issues of Perspectives, but I think we can safely say that the winds of change will not be subsiding any time soon.
Also on the TJC front, as we move into the 2017 survey year, those of you that will likely be facing survey, I encourage you to tune in to a webinar being presented on the SAFER (Survey Analysis For Evaluating Risk) matrix, which (aside from being transformative—a rather tall order and somewhat scary to consider) will be the cornerstone of your survey reports. We’ve covered some of the salient points here in the past (this is quickly becoming almost very nearly as popular a topic for me as eyewashes and general ranting), but I really cannot encourage you enough to give this topic a great deal of attention over the coming months. As with all new things TJC, there will be a shakedown cruise, with much variability of result (or this is my suspicion based on past experiences)—it is unlikely that this much change at one time is going to enhance consistency or it’s hard to imagine how it would/could (should is another matter entirely). At any rate, the next webinar is scheduled for Tuesday, March 7, 2017; details here.
Please remember to keep those cards and letters coming. It’s always nice to hear from folks. (It almost makes me think that there’s somebody out there at the other end of all those electrons…) Have a safe and productive week as we await the arrival of Spring!
Something old and something new(ish): old rant, new requirement.
As we move ever onwards toward the close of our first year “under” the 2012 Life Safety Code® (talk about a brave new world), there was one item of deadline that I wanted to touch upon before it got too, too much further into the year. And that, my friends, is the requirement for an annual inspection of fire and smoke door assemblies—for those of you keeping track, this activity falls under the EOC chapter under the standard with all those other pesky life safety-related inspection, testing, and maintenance activities (don’t forget to make sure that your WRITTEN documentation of the door assembly inspection includes the appropriate NFPA standards reference—in this case, you have quite a few to track: NFPA 101-2012 for the general requirements; NFPA 80-2010 for the fire door assemblies; and, NFPA 105-2010 for the smoke door assemblies). Also, please, please, please make sure that the individual(s) conducting these activities can “demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the operating components of the door being tested” (if this sounds like it might be a competency that might need to be included in a position description and performance evaluation, I think you just might be barking up the correct tree). The testing is supposed to begin with a pre-test visual inspection, with the testing to include both sides of the opening. Also, if you are thinking that this is yet another task that will be well-served by having an inventory, by location, of the door assemblies, you would indeed be correct (to the best of my knowledge). As a caveat for this one, please also keep in mind that this would include shaft access doors, linen and trash chute—while not exactly endless, the list can be pretty extensive. At the moment, from all I can gather, fire-rated access panels are optional for inclusion, though I don’t know that I wouldn’t be inclined to have a risk assessment in one’s back pocket outlining the decision to include or not to include (that is the question!?!) the access panels in the program.
I’m thinking you will probably want to capture this as a recurring activity in your work order system, as well as developing a documentation form. Make sure the following items are covered in the inspection/testing activity:
- No open holes or breaks in the surfaces of either the door or the frame
- Door clearances are in compliance (no more than ¾ inch for fire doors; no more than 1 inch for corridor doors; no more than ¾ inch for smoke barrier doors in new buildings)
- No unapproved protective plates greater than 16 inches from the bottom of the door
- Making sure the latching hardware works properly
- If the door has a coordinator, making sure that the inactive door leaf closes before the active leaf
- Making sure meeting edge protection, gasketing, and edge seals (if they are required—depends on the door) are inspected to make sure they are in place and intact
I think the other piece of the equation here is that you need to keep in mind that “annual” is a minimum frequency for this activity; ultimately, the purpose of this whole exercise is to develop performance data that will allow you to determine the inspection frequency that makes the most sense for compliance and overall life safety. Some doors (and I suspect that you could rattle off a pretty good list of them without even thinking about it too much) are going to need a little more attention because they “catch” more than their fair share of abuse (crash, bang boom!). Now that this isn’t an optional activity (ah, those days of the BMP…), you might as well make the most of it.
Putting on my rant-cap, I’d like to steal just a few moments to lament the continuing decline of decency (it used to be common; now, not so much) when it comes to interactions with strangers (and who knows, maybe it’s extending into familial and friendial interactions as well—I sure hope not!) I firmly believe that any and every kindness should be acknowledged, even if it’s something that they were supposed to do! My favorite example is stopping for pedestrians (and if you’ve been behind me, yes that was me stopping to let someone complete the walk); yes, I know that in many, if not most, places, the law requires you to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk, but I think the law should also require acknowledgement from the pedestrians. Positive reinforcement can’t possibly hurt in these types of encounters. Allowing merging traffic to move forward (signaling is a desirable approach to this, but you should also signal the person who let you in). I’m not sure if we’re just out of practice or what, but I’d ask you to just try a little more to say “hi” or “thanks” or give somebody a wave when they aren’t jerks (and just so we’re straight, a wave includes more than just the middle digit). Maybe I’m going a little Pollyanna here, but the world is just not nice enough lately. Hopefully we can make an incremental improvement…
…when up pops somebody, eventually…
Interesting story in the news last week about someone infiltrating the perioperative area at a hospital in the Boston area (the news story identifies the hospital, so no need to do that here, IMHO). Every time I see one of these types of stories, it makes me glad that I do not still have operational responsibilities for a hospital security department. (In many ways, I have made something of a career of embracing thankless jobs in the healthcare realm; well, maybe not completely thankless, but it can be tough for folks at the bottom of the healthcare food chain. But enough about that.) Apparently, this individual was able to gain access to the perioperative areas, including the restricted portions, without having an identification badge. Now I will say that, based on my observations, the healthcare industry is much better about wearing ID badges, but I will also say that the OR is a tough spot to practice enforcement of your ID policy, especially during the busy times. And then there is the subject of tailgating, which is a time-honored tradition, particularly when you move to an electronic/badge access solution for controlling who gets where in your organization. And, short of installing turnstiles at all your entry points (now wouldn’t that create some noise?), tailgating is going to continue to be a vulnerability relative to security. Much as learning that the NSA was listening in on lots of conversations, I didn’t find this particular news story, or indeed the event, particularly surprising. In all likelihood it happens more than we know—from salespeople to distressed families to the media, the list of potential candidates for such an incursion is rather lengthy. (I’m sure you can add to that list and please feel free to do so!) The source article for the above story indicates that the individual was identified as an interloper when “physicians caught on” (I could be glib and throw out a “maybe she didn’t know the secret handshake,” but that would be catty), so I guess it’s good to make sure that you have good participation from your medical staff in the matter of ID badge compliance.
All that said, and in full recognition that logic doesn’t always prevail, I have a sneaking suspicion that this might just join active shooter response on the regulatory survey security hot topic list (remember when nuclear medicine deliveries were the flavor of the month?). I think anyone having survey over the next little while would be well-served in considering how to respond to queries regarding access control in your ORs and other areas.
It is a most delicate balance: protecting folks and yet providing access to all the patients we serve. Maybe there will be some grant money floating around that could be used for this purpose—nah!