RSSAuthor Archive for Steve MacArthur

Steve MacArthur

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.

Just when you thought it couldn’t possibly get any stranger…

But first (as promised), a word about fire drills (there will be more, maybe next week, depends on what comes flying over the transom…): About a month ago, I mentioned the possibility of a shift in fire drill frequencies for business occupancies from annual to quarterly. This was based on actual experiences during a state/CMS survey in the Southeast. At the time, it seemed a bit incongruous, but the lead Life Safety surveyor was very pointed in indicating that this was the “real deal.” Well, as it should turn out, it appears that somewhere between that pointed closing, and the receipt of the survey report and follow-up, there may have been a little excess stretching of the interpretive dance that we’ve all come to know (and not love). As of the moment, business occupancy fire drills will continue to be on the annual calendar and not the quarterly one. So, three cheers for that!

But the oddest headline of the past couple of weeks revolves around CMS and their “sense” that our friends in Chicago are being, for lack of a better term, overly transparent during the survey process, particularly during exit conferences at the end of each survey day. The thought given voice is The Joint Commission (TJC) is “(p)roviding too much detail or having extensive discussions before or during a facility inspection survey can potentially compromise the integrity of the survey process. Based on the level of detail shared, a facility could correct potential deficiencies mid-course, which would skew the findings and final outcome of the investigation,” (you can read the source article here). Exactly how this determination was made is not crystal clear to me, but it did occur during the process through which TJC’s deemed status was renewed—but only for two years.

For those of you who have participated in surveys over the year, I think we are in agreement that excessive clarity was not one of the hallmarks of the survey process, though it shivers my timbers to think of how they could become even less so. I have noticed a marked decrease in useful information, per issue, in Perspectives over the past few years, so maybe that’s one of the forums that will be less instructive as we enter the post-COVID era of accreditation surveys. We know that much of what goes down during a survey is the result of interpretation of regulations that are as broadly-scoped as they could possibly be (or are they?), so it would seem that we are looking at an even more opaque survey process—holy moley!

Until next time, be well and stay safe. We need each other—and perhaps never more than now!

Yes, I know I said fire drills, but…

Please feel free to accuse me of “dogging it,” but since I am on vacation this week and you all probably need something of a vacation from me, here’s just a quick blast relating to our latest conversation thread.

Hopefully, you noted the recent headlines indicating The Joint Commission’s (TJC) continued status as an accreditation organization with deemed status; you probably also noted that CMS continues to tighten the leash (if you will), approving their accreditation status for only two years. The CMS indicated, among other things that they “…are concerned about TJC’s review of medical records and surveying off-site locations, in particular for the Physical Environment Condition of Participation (CoP).” Talk about waving a red flag in front of a bovine nose or two!

I think we can intuit that the folks from CMS (not unlike, say, The Man from Glad, or UNCLE) were reasonably pointed in their discussions with TJC prior to making the announcement and, in the face of what might reasonably be interpreted as an existential threat, we can expect lots of attention paid to the outpatient setting(s) in general, and a keen focus on all things relating to the care environment. Certainly, the level of angst generated by this “omen” will hinge closely on how widespread your organization is and (potentially) how well your corporate structure compartmentalizes offsite locations. If you’re not sure, one thing you might consider doing is hopping over to TJC’s website for searching accredited organizations and see how your place “shakes out.” Nominally, each of the care locations they think you have should be represented, and it’s always fun to see if what’s there matches up with what you think you have. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there have been some surprises in the past and I have no reason to think the future holds anything different.

So, that’s our missive for this week  and we’ll cover fire drills next time—I wicked promise! Unless something else happens…

Take care and stay safe!

Emergency management in (you guessed it) ambulatory healthcare

I was really, really, really thinking that I’d be able to glom on to some other subject matter this week (which I suppose it partially true), but it would seem that I’m going to be mining this particular vein of compliance (recognizing that “vein” rhymes with “bane”—make of that what you will…) for at least a bit longer.

At any rate, our friends in Chicago recently indicated some changes relative to the requirements for emergency exercises, but it does seem to be that the changes are intended to reflect CMS reducing the number of required exercises, as referenced in the Emergency Preparedness final rule, to one exercise per year and you only have to conduct a “big” (for lack of a better descriptor) exercise every other year. By big, that would be either a community-based, full-scale exercise (if available) or a facility-based functional exercise.

You may, of course, conduct as many “big” exercises as you like, but in the opposite years, you can even run with a tabletop exercise (though there is a fairly specific setup for the tabletop, so make sure each of the elements is accounted for before you try to take credit). Also, if your organization experiences an actual emergency that requires activation of the emergency plan, you can count that as your activation for the year (and it’s beginning to look a lot like COVID-19 is going to populate a lot of folks’ 2020-2021 emergency management program events).

As a somewhat related aside, this reduces the number of performance elements relating to exercises from three to one, so I think we can count this as a victory for the downtrodden, etc.

I know a lot of folks sometimes struggle with how to involve the ambulatory healthcare locations in exercises, so I think this provides a simpler framework to consider when identifying potential compliance gaps/shortfalls.

I think next week we’re probably going to have a little chat regarding fire drills; the July 2020 issue of The Joint Commission Perspectives has some “clarifying” thoughts on the topic that are probably worth kicking around.

Until next time, hope all is well and you’re staying safe!

Stuck on the same refrain: Outpatient! Outpatient! Outpatient!

I’m hoping to break the spell in kind of a reverse Beetlejuice invocation…

As we try to obtain some level of clarity relative to the Joint Commission survey process moving forward, there is some indication (and a fair amount of it as far as I’m concerned) that they will be focusing even more closely (thoroughly, exhaustively, etc.) on documentation, which means the survey devil will be, as it always has been, in the details. And one of the truisms of spending more time with the documents is the element of interpretation that surveyors will be bringing to the table and what they will consider evidence of compliance. At the moment, it’s not clear who will be engaging in the document review for the outpatient settings if they are not defined as a healthcare or ambulatory healthcare occupancy, but there is most definitely a movement afoot to include LS/EOC documentation for all care locations. Now, the applicability of the document review is going to be based on what systems, protections, etc., are present at each of the care locations, but the clear expectation is that any system that is present will be maintained in accordance with the applicable code and/or regulation. For example, if you have an outpatient care location that has a fire department connection, then you need to make sure that you have the appropriate documentation of that inspection activity. Likewise, if you have sprinklers, then you better make sure that the sprinkler list is up to date and all pertinent information is available for inspection.

It seems that every week I’m thinking that I can set this aside and each week something else pops up that I feel is worth sharing (have you done an eyewash assessment yet for your outpatient care locations?) and I suspect that we’ve not reached the end of this conversation. That said, I think there is going to be increased focus on generating more findings and you could say that outpatient locations represent a whole mess of opportunities for doing just that. We know they’re coming, we just need to get ahead of the curve. Hope these are helping you strategize.

Be well and stay safe until next time…

Brother/Sister, can you spare a sprinkler head?

This week, I continue my ruminations on all things relating to outpatient care sites (Quick question: Is there anyone out there who doesn’t have responsibility for any outpatient care locations? I hope not, because this is probably getting a little tedious, though I guess in that hope it means that your existence has become more complicated over time, but if you don’t, you probably will). At any rate, this week’s tidbit revolves around the requirements for all (and I do mean “all”) properties having sprinkler heads to have a list of the sprinkler heads installed in the property, with the list being posted in the sprinkler cabinet. I think everyone is familiar with the requirements to have a stock of spare sprinklers, which would include all the types and ratings installed, with the number of spares guided by the following algorithm:

6.2.9.5 The stock of spare sprinklers shall include all types and ratings installed and shall be as follows (this also shows up in NFPA 25-2011 in Chapter 5) :

(1) For protected facilities having under 300 sprinklers – no fewer than 6 sprinklers

(2) For protected facilities having 300 to 1000 sprinklers – no fewer than 12 sprinklers

(3) For protected facilities having over 1000 sprinklers – no fewer than 24 sprinklers

By the way, the information contained in this week’s missive is sourced from the 2010 edition of NFPA 13 Standard for Installation of Sprinkler Systems, which came into play when CMS adopted the 2012 edition of the Life Safety Code® (LSC). As a cautionary note, now this information “lives” in NFPA 25 Standard for the Inspection, Testing & Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, so if you happen to have a state authority having jurisdiction that’s using a more recent edition of the LSC, then NFPA 25 is where you’ll find this stuff.

At any rate, back to that all-important list (and kudos to those of you who have your lists in place), bopping back to NFPA 13, we find the following:

6.2.9.7.1* The list shall include the following:

(1) Sprinkler identification number (SIN) if equipped; or the manufacturer, model, orifice, deflector type, thermal sensitivity, and pressure rating

(2) General description

(3) Quantity of each type to be contained in the cabinet

(4) Issue or revision date of the list

The Appendix provides a little more info:

A.6.2.9.7.1 The minimum information in the list contained in the spare sprinkler cabinet should be marked with the following:

(1) General description of the sprinkler, including upright, pendent, residential, ESFR, and so forth

(2) Quantity of sprinklers to be maintained in the spare sprinkler cabinet

Where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, is the requirement for an annual verification of all this stuff:

NFPA 25-2011: 5.2.1.4 The supply of sprinklers shall be inspected annually for the following:

(1) The correct number and type of sprinklers as required by 5.4.1.4 and 5.4.1.5

(2) A sprinkler wrench for each type of sprinkler as required by 5.4.1.5.6

5.4.1.5* A supply of at least six spare sprinklers shall be maintained on the premises so that any sprinklers that have operated or been damaged in any way can be promptly replaced.

A.5.4.1.5 – A minimum of two sprinklers of each type and temperature rating installed should be provided.

5.4.1.5.1 The sprinklers shall correspond to the types and temperature ratings of the sprinklers in the property.

5.4.1.5.2 The sprinklers shall be kept in a cabinet located where the temperatures will at no time exceed 100 degrees F.

5.4.1.4.2.1 Where dry sprinklers of different lengths are installed, spare dry sprinklers shall not be required, provided that a means of returning the system to service is furnished.

So that’s the partial skinny on sprinklers; the primary reason for plunking this down in front of you is because this showed up as a finding (mostly the list, but the other stuff is fair game) in a recent survey (not The Joint Commission, but these things tend to move through the various regulatory tribes).

I did want to leave you with a final thought for the week. I subscribe to a weekly email newsletter from James Clear (the following lives here); I find the newsletter interesting and much more often than not, useful, so I give you:

“What is the real goal?

  • The real goal is not to ‘beat the market.’ The goal is to build wealth.
  • The real goal is not to read more books. The goal is to understand what you read.
  • Don’t let a proxy become the target. Don’t optimize for the wrong outcome.”

Stay well and stay safe—that’s all I need you to do!

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!

And it makes me wonder…sure does!

And it’s not just a bustle in your hedgerow, so alarm might be warranted…

Lately, I’ve been using this space to muse on the potential for changes to the survey process, particularly as a function of the inclusion of outpatient clinic settings and the impact of life safety surveyor attention to these facilities might have on survey results. If your immediate thought was “more findings in the physical environment,” I fear you are more correct than you might have wanted to be.

While I don’t have access to the official results just yet (the wheels of bureaucracy grind ever slowly), I was able to be front and center last week for a full federal Conditions of Participation survey. The most notable aspect of the survey (for me) was the attention paid to outpatient clinics being managed as business occupancies by the life safety portion of the survey process. There was a lot of focused document review for these offsite locations, with the expectation that the degree/level of exactitude in the documentation for your main campus is to be extended to the outpatient settings. Inventory lists of devices, making sure sensitivity testing is being done (with specific values—not just a pass/fail note for each); focused attention on how spare sprinkler heads are being managed—including ensuring that the correct wrench or wrenches are in place; quarterly fire drills (and yes, you read that correctly; it seems that the days of annual fire drills in business occupancies is drawing to a close), etc.

Those of you managing your outpatient settings through your own processes will have a leg up on the process, but if you rely on documentation provided by landlords, etc., you probably want to start kicking those tires and having the discussions now. The other piece of this is that the expectation is that any requested documentation would be readily (pretty darn close to immediately) available for review by the surveyor, so you may want to consider how you are managing that process. Do you have site-based binders or do you provide electronically? The surveyors definitely don’t want to hear that (for whatever reason) the documentation is not available.

As a final thought for this week, in light of this week’s coverage, you may want to give some thought as to how you might memorialize the ligature resistance risk assessment in the outpatient areas (don’t forget to make it thoughtful). As you can see from the link, the FAQ is aimed at the “hospital and hospital clinics” settings, so I think we can see where this could (and, let’s face it, probably will) go.

Until next time, I hope this finds you well and somehow managing the current currents—not sure what it will look like when we finally get past these rapids, but I hope that we all get through together!

We advance, masked!

In the topsy turvy world of Personal Protective Equipment (aka PPE), there are some developments on the decontamination/reprocessing of masks that I wanted to bring to your attention, if you’ve not already scoped them out.

First up, a little more information from our friends at the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, where we find that the guidance issues to surveyors is to be somewhat judicious in how they chase issues relating to PPE, but the basic expectations of employers look like this:

  • Make a good-faith effort to provide and ensure workers use the most appropriate respiratory protection available for the hazards against which workers need to be protected. Efforts should be consistent with flexibilities outlined in OSHA’s previous COVID-19 enforcement memoranda.
  • When respirators must be decontaminated to facilitate their reuse in ways consistent with OSHA’s previous COVID-19 enforcement memoranda and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Respirators, ensure that decontamination is accomplished according to the methods described above and detailed in CDC’s Decontamination and Reuse of Filtering Facepiece Respirators using Contingency and Crisis Capacity Strategies.
  • Ensure users perform a user seal check each time they don a respirator. Employers should not permit use of a respirator on which the user cannot perform a successful user seal check. See 29 CFR § 1910.134, Appendix B-1, User Seal Check Procedures.[11]
  • Train employees to follow appropriate precautionary measures prior to using a decontaminated filtering facepiece respirator (FFR). See cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/decontamination-reuse-respirators.html.
  • Train employees using decontaminated respirators to understand that if the structural and functional integrity of any part of the respirator is compromised, it should not be used by that individual as respiratory protection. The inability to achieve a successful user seal check could be an indicator that the integrity of the respirator is compromised.
  • Visually inspect, or ensure that workers visually inspect, the FFRs to determine if the structural and functional integrity of the respirator has been compromised. Over time or as a result of the decontamination process, components such as the straps, nose bridge, and nose foam material may degrade, which can affect the quality of the fit and seal.
  • Train employees on the procedures for the sequence of donning/doffing to prevent self-contamination. See cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/PPE-Sequence-508.pdf.
  • If no manufacturer or third-party guidance or procedures are available to support the specific decontamination method(s) employed, avoid the use of decontaminated FFRs when healthcare personnel perform surgical procedures on patients infected with, or potentially infected with, SARS-CoV-2 or perform or are present for procedures expected to generate aerosols or procedures where respiratory secretions are likely to be poorly controlled (e.g., cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubation, extubation, bronchoscopy, nebulizer therapy, sputum induction). If decontamination methods degrade FFR performance, including filtration and fit, or otherwise affect structural integrity, the decontaminated FFR may not provide the level of protection needed or expected during aerosol-generating procedures.

I suspect that, in general, folks are being sufficiently attentive to their PPE (perhaps more than has ever been the case) that they are checking for integrity (though they may not be as familiar with the User Seal Check Procedure—could be a teachable moment). And the missive covers some decontamination methodologies that may be of interest, particularly in light of the FDA’s altered stance on decontamination and reprocessing of masks.

I guess the questions become those related to available supplies of PPE. I get the sense that some folks are still relying to a fair degree on the use of masks that are not NIOSH-approved and so this latest development could potentially mean that, in the absence of being able to decontaminate and reprocess, the supply chain is going to have to be considerably more robust in either providing more non-NIOSH masks or more NIOSH masks that can be appropriately decontaminated, etc. I’d be curious to hear of any experiences (good or not so) that you’ve had in this regard. It seems likely that, even as we try to get to the “new normal,” we’re going to be dealing with this for a while, so we might as well share the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Speaking of which (sort of), as a closing thought for this week, now that I am hanging out in airports again, one thing that I’ve noticed is the phenomenon of the smile that doesn’t reach someone’s eyes. Pre-mask, I don’t know that I analyzed transient interactions with folks, but I find myself responding to folks based on their “eye language” and I’ve found that it can turn what would typically be a (more or less) neutral transaction into a positive or negative. I suspect that most customer service training involves reminding folks to smile, but now that our smiles have been temporarily removed from the occasion, the eyes are all we have for first impressions. Don’t know if that’s useful to you, but something to ponder.

Be well and stay safe ’til next time!

A little mo’ from the Mighty O (ccupational Safety & Health Administration)

As they are wont to do, the folks at OSHA periodically issue safety alerts and it would seem that the ongoing challenges of managing the ongoing occupational health and safety aspects of COVID-19 is ripe for alerting. You can find the complete list of alerts on OSHA’s COVID-19 homepage.

Interestingly enough, OSHA has not (as of this writing) issued an alert specific to hospitals, but they did recently issue an alert aimed at nursing homes and long-term care facilities, the elements of which are, at the very least, instructive for other folks in the healthcare demographic; you can find the alert in its entirety here. I just wanted to plant a seed relative to a few of these:

  • Maintain at least 6 feet between workers, residents, and visitors, to the extent possible, including while workers perform their duties and during breaks.
  • Stagger break periods to avoid crowding in breakrooms.
  • Always follow good infection prevention and control practices. Consult OSHA’s COVID-19 guidance for healthcare workers and employers.
  • Provide handwashing facilities and alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol throughout facilities.
  • Regularly clean and disinfect shared equipment and frequently touched surfaces in resident rooms, staff work stations, and common areas.
  • Use hospital-grade cleaning chemicals approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from List N or EPA-approved, hospital grade cleaning chemicals that have label claims against the coronavirus.
  • Ensure workers have and use any personal protective equipment (PPE) they need to perform their jobs safely.
  • Continually monitor PPE stocks, burn rate, and supply chains. Develop a process for decontamination and reuse of PPE, such as face shields and goggles, as appropriate. Follow CDC recommendations for optimization of PPE supplies.
  • Train workers about how to protect themselves and residents during the pandemic.
  • Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns.

I don’t know that there’s anything on the list that doesn’t make sense, but I do think it might be useful/beneficial to keep an eye on these (and the other elements) to ensure you and your folks are not at elevated risk for exposure. Admittedly, there is still a lot we don’t know about the epidemiological aspects of COVID-19 and it may result in additional levels of guidance and/or protection (remember those halcyon days when masks were not required—seems like only months ago—oh, wait, I guess it was…). I also think it’s important to hear folks out if they voice frustrations with process, etc. A fair amount of this stuff is learning as we go—and making the best decisions we can based on the available information—in full recognition that being a leader in healthcare can mean having to put up with some unpleasant feedback. I think some folks in the field remain super concerned and super attentive to the decisions others are making on their behalf, so it’s important to keep things on an even keel.

Until next time, continue to stay safe—and keep rocking it!

They’re baaaack: TJC returns to the fray!

Last week, our friends in Chicago announced that they will be resuming the survey grind in June (in all candor, I too will be heading out on the highways and byways of the consulting world, though I can’t help but think how “neatly” June sets up, June 1 being a Monday and all—I know nature likes symmetry, etc., but this seems almost too convenient. But I digress).

While it is not yet completely clear how things will be different, it does sound like there will be a fair amount of analysis and communications with facilities being surveyed to ensure that the survey process goes as smoothly as possible from an operational perspective. To that end, if you happen to be at a facility “in the queue” for survey, the account executive coordinating the process will be reaching out to your organization to determine the impact the pandemic has had on your operations and what things look like in their “current state.”

It is also clear that social distancing will be in full force for the next little while (again, I’ll have a chance to weigh on some of those particulars as I recommence client visits), including limiting the number of individuals “present” in group sessions (audio and/or video conferencing will take on much wider application—I know some of your EOC/EM committees have a lot of moving parts); minimizing participants in tracer activities; appropriate use of PPE (as provided for each organization’s requirements—TJC expects you to provide whatever is appropriate); driving in separate cars for off-site location and/or home visits, etc.

The announcement also indicated that the focus of the process will be a thorough assessment, but not a retroactive review of compliance (I am curious as to how that will manifest itself, particularly in terms of inspection, testing and maintenance activities, and other elements of compliance in place prior to the onset of the pandemic). The announcement also indicates that implementation of your emergency operations plan will not be the focus of the survey so much as the development of an understanding of how your organization has adapted to the pandemic and look at current practices to evaluate the extent to which safe care, and a safe working environment are being provided.