RSSAll Entries in the "CMS" Category

But I never wave bye-bye: Closing out 2017 with some LSC goodies…

As noted last week, this week’s foray looks into the changes to the Life Safety chapter that will be onboarding at the turn of the new year (the details can be found here). I think (for the most part), there is nothing particularly earth-shattering in the new requirements: really just a mix of updating the NFPA standards edition numbers, some increased granularity relative to fire alarm systems, and a couple of opportunities for some quick risk assessments/evaluations to ensure that what you had is not going to get you into survey difficulty. Also (and I guess only time will tell us how important this is going to be), it is important to continue to monitor the practical applications of Chapter 43, especially when one is in the throes of changing utilization to the point of a shift in occupancy classifications. My not-insubstantial gut tells me that this has great potential for consternation in the field, including the ongoing impact of inconsistent (bordering on draconian) interpretations. Certainly some of the granularity indicated below will lessen some of the over-interpretation woes (definitive reads on square footage should help), but those hard lines drawn in the sand can also represent some challenges as you are planning and executing renovation, etc., projects. In my experience, there aren’t too many projects that remain the same (in terms of scope) through the design and build phases, so you may find yourself paying more attention to expanding project footprints.

And so:

LS.02.01.10

  • Building undergoing change of use or occupancy must be in compliance with 101-2012:43.7 (certain exceptions, as always, apply); likewise, any additions must comply with the requirements for new.
  • Any of you with non-sprinklered smoke compartments undergoing major rehabilitation are putting sprinklers in (I hope); major rehabilitation involves more than 50% of the area of the smoke compartment or 4500 square feet—whichever comes first.
  • Multiple occupancies in a building must observe the most stringent occupancy requirements—so keep those occupancy separations well-defined and tight; also, outpatient surgical departments must be classified as ambulatory healthcare regardless of the number of patients served. Those of you at organizations considering going to provider-based models need to keep those surgical procedure locations under close watch.

 

LS.02.01.20

  • Make sure your horizontal sliding doors that are not automatic closing are limited to a single leaf and have a latch or other mechanism to prevent the door from rebounding; also, there are some specific requirements for horizontal doors serving an occupant load of 10 or fewer, including operability from either side without special knowledge or effort and a couple other things. 101-2012: 18/19.2.2.2.10.2 will help you with the details.
  • Make sure that every corridor provides access to at least two approved exits; no passing through any intervening rooms or spaces other than corridors or lobbies.
  • Have you included a look at door widths in your ongoing rated door program? Existing exit access doors have to be at least 32 inches in clear width, though you can hold on to your 28-inch doors if you’re not evacuating by bed, gurney, or wheelchair. New exit access doors have to be at least 41½ inches in clear width (psych hospitals have to be at least 32 inches wide). Doors not subject to patient use, exit stairway enclosures or serving newborn nurseries can hold the line at 32 inches. Door pairs with an inactive leaf must have the inactive leaf secured with automatic flush bolts. There are a few other pieces of this, so make sure you transfer/transmit the particulars to the folks inspecting the doors.
  • Existing exit access doors and exit doors are of the swinging type and are at least 32 inches in clear width. Exceptions are provided for existing 34-inch doors and for existing 28-inch doors where the fire plan does not require evacuation by bed, gurney, or wheelchair.
  • Travel distances to exits are measured in accordance with NFPA 101-2012: 7.6.

 

LS.02.01.30

  • Laboratories using quantities of flammable, combustible, or hazardous materials that are considered a severe hazard are in accordance with NFPA 101-2012: 8.7 and NFPA 99 requirements. I’m thinking most of you are probably not in position of severe hazardousness, but if you’re thinking what I’m thinking, a little risk assessment should solidify any of the particulars.

 

LS.02.01.34

  • Make sure your fire alarm system is up to snuff relative to the applicable requirements of NFPA 70 National Electric Code and NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm Code—probably worth a conversation and some verification by your fire alarm inspection, testing, and maintenance folks. This includes a more than passing familiarity with placement and types of devices, ensuring an alternative power supply for alarm systems, etc. Make sure that manual and automatic initiation of the fire alarm system is in accordance with the noted requirements, including pull stations. Also, make sure your alarm zones are not larger than 22,500 square feet (for some reason, I think that this might provide some angst for folks…) and spaces open to corridors are provided with appropriate smoke detection.

 

LS.02.01.50

  • Make sure that any spots containing equipment using gas or gas piping are up to snuff with NFPA 54 National Fuel Gas Code and electrical complies with NFPA 70. You can maintain existing installations that are not fully compliant as long as there are no life-threatening hazards.
  • Make sure those pesky heating devices are in appropriate compliance—with both code and your organizational policy.
  • Equipment using gas or gas piping complies with NFPA 54-2012, National Fuel Gas Code; electrical wiring and equipment complies with NFPA 70-2012, National Electric Code. Existing installations can continue in service provided there are no life-threatening hazards.
  • If you have fireplaces in your facility, there are specific considerations, including carbon monoxide detection; 101-2012: 9.2.2 will give you the lowdown.
  • 101-2012 9.4 will get you the straight dope on escalators, dumbwaiters, and moving walks—and don’t forget to consult ASME/ANSI A17.1 for new and ASME/ANSI A17.3 for existing equipment.

 

LS.02.01.70

  • If you’re hanging draperies, curtains (including cubicle and shower curtains), and loosely hanging fabric in non-sprinklered compartments, then 101-2012: 10.3.1 is the compliance source. Of course, if you have sprinklers, there are exceptions…
  • No sprinkler protection? Upholstered furniture purchased on or after July 5, 2016 must meet Class 1 or char length and heat release criteria—101-2012: 10.3.2.1 and 10.3.3; mattresses purchased on or after 7/6/2016 must meet 101-2012 10.3.2.2 and 10.3.4
  • If you have a new engineered smoke control system, it must be tested in accordance with NFPA 92-2012, Standard for Smoke Control Systems. If you have an existing engineered smoke control system, it must be tested in accordance with established engineering principles.

 

Since I don’t want you to be completely comatose for your New Year’s celebrations, I will cover the ambulatory occupancy changes sometime in January (please feel free to prod me if you’d rather I do it sooner than later). And on that note, I wish each and every one of you safe celebrations and a most prosperously compliant New Year!

On the nth day of Christmas, CMS gave to me: Ligature risks revisited

As you will no doubt recall, back at the beginning of November, The Joint Commission released guidance relative to survey expectations and ligature risks, splitting things into guidance for behavioral health units/hospitals and then some separate items for expectations in non-behavioral health settings (emergency departments, inpatient units). The information release indicated that there were some folks from CMS involved in the (what will apparently be ongoing) discussion on what healthcare organizations can expect over the next little while as the challenges of managing all variations of the behavioral health patient population. What wasn’t clear at the time (at least to me—and it’s still not) was whether CMS’ participation in that process could be interpreted as an at least tacit endorsement of the guidance statements.

And now (well, this past week), CMS issued its own thoughts relative to its expectations, including indication that more will be forthcoming (in approximately six months’ time, so let’s just say sometime next summer). The Survey & Certification memorandum outlines the current slate of expectations (yours and theirs), starting with the pretty much unassailable notion that: “Ligature risks compromise Psychiatric Patients’ right to receive care in a safe setting.” I think we can all agree that that is a reasonable assertion with which to start a conversation.

The memo also goes on to outline the CMS definition of a ligature risk: “(a) ligature risk (point) is defined as anything which could be used to attach a cord, rope, or other material for the purpose of hanging or strangulation. Ligature points include shower rails, coat hooks, pipes, and radiators, bedsteads, window and door frames, ceiling fittings, handles, hinges and closures.” For me, the only surprise was that the example list didn’t say “include, but are not limited to.” I’m used to the regulatory rapscallions leaving themselves an “out” when it comes to this kind of stuff. While the list is pretty comprehensive, I think it stops a little short of all-inclusive, but perhaps as a function of the designated behavioral health environment, it will do. Which leads to the next highlight: this particular guidance is “primarily aimed at Psychiatric units/hospitals.” I guess that means that guidance for non-BH areas like regular emergency departments and acute-care hospital inpatient units that might have to manage behavioral health patients—maybe in the summer, but not really clear on that. It will be interesting to see how future guidance will dovetail (or not) with the TJC stuff.

So, as we wait for the next installment, it appears that it will be left in the hands of the folks on the ground (CMS regional offices, state survey agencies, accreditation organizations) to “the identification of ligature and other safety risk deficiencies, the level of citation for those deficiencies, as well as the approval of the facility’s corrective action and mitigation plans to minimize risk to patient safety and remedy the identified deficiencies.” At least for the moment, we know how TJC is going after this issue, but everything else is somewhat in the land of gray.

A couple of other items covered include time frame for correction of deficiencies (you have to fix things in the time frame identified by the surveying body, unless it is determined that it is not reasonable to expect compliance within the designated time frame, then only CMS can grant additional time for correction); the specific direction that ligature risks do not qualify for Life Safety Code® (LSC) waivers (because ligature risks are not LSC deficiencies); and if you do get to take additional time for corrective actions, monthly electronic progress reports—including substantiating evidence of progress towards compliance—will be the task. It would seem that the monthly check-in, particularly as a function of providing “substantiating evidence of progress” will help to keep the fires of progress burning bright in the hearts and minds of folks charged with making the necessary corrections. As a function of that, I’ve heard of some anecdotal accounts of surveyors indicating that there is a six-month grace period for corrective actions as long as you can substantiate that the corrections will take that long, but the word from Chicago is that is not the case. I have certainly witnessed long lead times for procurement of ligature-resistant door hardware and such, but that’s not enough to delay the reporting of progress process.

The Survey & Certification memorandum includes an attachment that outlines the current guidance to surveying agencies/organizations. I would encourage you all to give that a thorough look-see (and perhaps a dramatic reading instead of the traditional “’Twas the night before Christmas”—bet it puts the kiddies to sleep PDQ). Doubtless, I will weigh on some of the particulars as they leap out at me (much like those leaping lords) in the coming weeks, but I think I’ve gone on long enough for the moment. That said, I will leave you with these two passages from the guidance attachment:

  •  “In order to provide care in a safe setting, hospitals must identify patients at risk for intentional harm to self or others, identify environmental safety risks for such patients, and provide education and training for staff and volunteers.”

 

  • “Although all risks cannot be eliminated, hospitals are expected to demonstrate how they identify patients at risk of self-harm or harm to others and steps they are taking to minimize those risks in accordance with nationally recognized standards and guidelines.”

Certainly nothing we haven’t talked about in the past in regards to an endless supply of subjects, but kind of interesting to see this included in a missive from the palace…

Breaking good, breaking bad, breaking news: Ligature Risks Get Their Day in Court

As I pen this quick missive (sorry for the tardiness of posting—it was an unusually busy week), the final vestiges of summer appear to be receding into the distance and November makes itself felt with a bone-chilling greeting. Hopefully, that’s all the bone-chilling for the moment.

Late last month brought The Joint Commission’s publication of their recommendations for managing the behavioral health physical environment. The recommendations focus on three general areas: inpatient psychiatric units, general acute care inpatient settings, and emergency departments. The recommendations (there are a total of 13) were developed by an expert panel assembled by TJC and including participants from provider organizations, experts in suicide prevention and design of behavioral healthcare facilities, Joint Commission surveyors and staff, and (and this may very well be the most important piece of all) representatives from CMS. The panel had a couple of meetings over the summer, and then a third meeting a few weeks ago, just prior to publication of the recommendations, with the promise of further meetings and (presumably) further refinement of the recommendations. I was going to “cheat” and do a little cut and pasting of the recommendations, but there’s a fair amount if explanatory content on the TJC website vis-à-vis the recommendations, so I would encourage you to check them out in full.

Some of the critical things (at least at first blush—I suspect that we, as well as they, will be discussing this for some little while to come) include an altering of conceptual compliance from “ligature free” to “ligature resistant,” which, while not really changing how we’re going to be managing risks in the environment, at least acknowledge the practical reality that it is not always possible to provide a completely risk-free physical environment. But we can indeed appropriately manage the remaining risks by appropriate assessment, staff monitoring, etc. Another useful recommendation is one that backs off on the notion of having to install “alarms” at the tops of corridor doors to alert that someone might be trying to use the door as a ligature point. It seems that the usefulness of such devices is not supported by reported experience, so that’s a good thing, indeed.

At any rate, I will be looking at peeling these back over the next few weeks (I’ll probably “chunk” them by setting as opposed to taking the recommendations one at a time), but if anyone out there has a story or experience to share, I would be more than happy to facilitate that sharing.

As a final note for this week, a shout out to the veterans in the audience and a very warm round of thanks for your service: without your commitment and duty, we would all be the lesser for it. Salute!

 

ADA vs. LSC: Projecting into the Future—Are You Ready to Rumble?

One of the nagging things (at least for me) that’s been looming in the background is CMS’ statement (and restatement, with a side of reiteration) emphasizing that the Life Safety Code® (LSC) is not an accessibility code and, thus, does not ensure compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). You can find that statement and some other funky stuff here.

The web page also includes some specific considerations that I suspect that you will find of considerable interest (well, it did for me) in that it appears to represent some sense of how the ADA vs. LSC joust is going to manifest itself in the field. The following are the relevant sections, with a link to the individual paragraphs from the Federal Register:

SECTIONS 18.2.3.4(2) AND 19.2.3.4(2)—CORRIDOR PROJECTIONS

This provision requires noncontinuous projections to be no more than 6 inches from the corridor wall. In addition to following the requirements of the LSC, healthcare facilities must comply with the requirements of the ADA, including the requirements for protruding objects. The 2010 Standards for Accessible Design (2010 Standards) generally limit the protrusion of wall-mounted objects into corridors to no more than 4 inches from the wall when the object’s leading edge is located more than 27 inches, but not more than 80 inches, above the floor. See Sections 204.1 and 307 of the 2010 Standards, available at http://www.ada.gov/​regs2010/​2010ADAStandards/​Guidance2010ADAstandards.htm [2] (“2010 Standards”). This requirement protects persons who are blind or have low vision from being injured by bumping into a protruding object that they cannot detect with a cane. (https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-10043/p-78)

Although the LSC allows 6-inch projections, under the ADA, objects mounted above 27 inches and no more than 80 inches high can only protrude a maximum of 4 inches into the corridor beyond a detectable surface mounted less than 27 inches above the floor (except for certain handrails which may protrude up to 41/2″). See section 307 of the 2010 standards for requirements for handrails and post-mounted objects. CMS intends to provide technical assistance regarding strategies for how to avoid noncompliance with the ADA’s protruding objects requirement, as well as how to modify non-compliant protruding objects.) (https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-10043/p-80)

SECTIONS 18.2.3.4 AND 19.2.3.4—CORRIDORS

This provision allows for wheeled equipment that is in use, medical emergency equipment not in use, and patient lift and transportation equipment be permitted to be kept in the corridors for more timely patient care. This provision also allows facilities to place fixed furniture in the corridors, although the placement of furniture or equipment must not obstruct accessible routes required by the ADA. See section 403.5 of the 2010 Standards. (https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-10043/p-88)

So, it appears that we may be looking at some changes of fixtures, etc. (including fire extinguishers—lots of those wall-mounted lovelies floating around, not to mention hand sanitizer dispensers) and a re-think of how we’re positioning furniture in corridors—should be an interesting ride. A hearty thanks to Kevin Kozlowski, president of Oval Brand Fire Products for planting the seed that germinated into this week’s missive. Among other things, Kevin and his folks manufacture a fire extinguisher that meets ADA requirements for wall projections.

If you’d like me to discuss a particular topic, please feel free to kick something my way. I figure any question one person has, the likelihood of others having the same or similar question it pretty strong, so don’t be afraid.

Lazy days of autumn: CMS does emergency management (cue applause)!

I suppose you could accuse me of being a little lazy in this week’s offering, but I really want you to focus closely on what the CMS surveyors are instructed to ask for in the Emergency Management Interpretive Guidelines (more on those here; seems like forever ago), so I’ve done a bit of a regulatory reduction by pulling out the non-hospital elements (I still think they could have done a better job with sorting this out for the individual programs) and then pulling out the Survey Procedures piece—that’s really where the rubber meets the road in terms of how this is going to be surveyed, at least at the front end of the survey process.

I suspect (and we only have all of recorded history to fall back on for this) that as surveyors become more comfortable with the process, they may go a little off-topic from time to time (surprise, surprise, surprise!), but I think this is useful from a starting point. As I have maintained right along, I really believe that you folks have your arms around this, even to the point of shifting interpretations. This is the stuff that they’ve been instructed to ask for, so I think this is the stuff that you should verify is in place (and, really, I think you’ll find you’re in very good shape). There’s a fair amount of ground to cover, so I will leave you to it—until next week!

BTW, I purposely didn’t identify which of the specific pieces of the Final Rule apply to each set of Survey Procedures. If there is a hue and cry, I will be happy to do so (or you can make your own—it might be worth it to tie these across to the requirements), but I think these are the pieces to worry about, without the language of bureaucracy making a mess of things. Just sayin’…

Survey Procedures

  • Interview the facility leadership and ask him/her/them to describe the facility’s emergency preparedness program.
  • Ask to see the facility’s written policy and documentation on the emergency preparedness program.
  • For hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAH) only: Verify the hospital’s or CAH’s program was developed based on an all-hazards approach by asking their leadership to describe how the facility used an all-hazards approach when developing its program.

Survey Procedures

  • Verify the facility has an emergency preparedness plan by asking to see a copy of the plan.
  • Ask facility leadership to identify the hazards (e.g., natural, man-made, facility, geographic, etc.) that were identified in the facility’s risk assessment and how the risk assessment was conducted.
  • Review the plan to verify it contains all of the required elements.
  • Verify that the plan is reviewed and updated annually by looking for documentation of the date of the review and updates that were made to the plan based on the review.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Ask to see the written documentation of the facility’s risk assessments and associated strategies.
  • Interview the facility leadership and ask which hazards (e.g., natural, man-made, facility, geographic) were included in the facility’s risk assessment, why they were included and how the risk assessment was conducted.
  • Verify the risk assessment is based on an all-hazards approach specific to the geographic location of the facility and encompasses potential hazards.

Survey Procedures

Interview leadership and ask them to describe the following:

  • The facility’s patient populations that would be at risk during an emergency event
  • Strategies the facility (except for an ASC, hospice, PACE organization, HHA, CORF, CMHC, RHC, FQHC and end stage renal disease (ESRD) facility) has put in place to address the needs of at-risk or vulnerable patient populations
  • Services the facility would be able to provide during an emergency
  • How the facility plans to continue operations during an emergency
  • Delegations of authority and succession plans

Verify that all of the above are included in the written emergency plan.

Survey Procedures

Interview facility leadership and ask them to describe their process for ensuring cooperation and collaboration with local, tribal, regional, state, and federal emergency preparedness officials’ efforts to ensure an integrated response during a disaster or emergency situation.

  • Ask for documentation of the facility’s efforts to contact such officials and, when applicable, its participation in collaborative and cooperative planning efforts.
  • For ESRD facilities, ask to see documentation that the ESRD facility contacted the local public health and emergency management agency public official at least annually to confirm that the agency is aware of the ESRD facility’s needs in the event of an emergency and know how to contact the agencies in the event of an emergency.

Survey Procedures

Review the written policies and procedures which address the facility’s emergency plan and verify the following:

  • Policies and procedures were developed based on the facility- and community-based risk assessment and communication plan, utilizing an all-hazards approach.
  • Ask to see documentation that verifies the policies and procedures have been reviewed and updated on an annual basis.

Survey Procedures

  • Verify the emergency plan includes policies and procedures for the provision of subsistence needs including, but not limited to, food, water and pharmaceutical supplies for patients and staff by reviewing the plan.
  • Verify the emergency plan includes policies and procedures to ensure adequate alternate energy sources necessary to maintain:

o Temperatures to protect patient health and safety and for the safe and sanitary storage of provisions;

o Emergency lighting; and,

o Fire detection, extinguishing, and alarm systems.

  • Verify the emergency plan includes policies and procedures to provide for sewage and waste disposal.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Ask staff to describe and/or demonstrate the tracking system used to document locations of patients and staff.
  • Verify that the tracking system is documented as part of the facilities’ emergency plan policies and procedures.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Review the emergency plan to verify it includes policies and procedures for safe evacuation from the facility and that it includes all of the required elements.
  • When surveying an RHC or FQHC, verify that exit signs are placed in the appropriate locations to facilitate a safe evacuation.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify the emergency plan includes policies and procedures for how it will provide a means to shelter in place for patients, staff and volunteers who remain in a facility.
  • Review the policies and procedures for sheltering in place and evaluate if they aligned with the facility’s emergency plan and risk assessment.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Ask to see a copy of the policies and procedures that documents the medical record documentation system the facility has developed to preserves patient (or potential and actual donor for OPOs) information, protects confidentiality of patient (or potential and actual donor for OPOs) information, and secures and maintains availability of records.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify the facility has included policies and procedures for the use of volunteers and other staffing strategies in its emergency plan.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Ask to see copies of the arrangements and/or any agreements the facility has with other facilities to receive patients in the event the facility is not able to care for them during an emergency.
  • Ask facility leadership to explain the arrangements in place for transportation in the event of an evacuation.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify the facility has included policies and procedures in its emergency plan describing the facility’s role in providing care and treatment (except for RNHCI, for care only) at alternate care sites under an 1135 waiver.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify that the facility has a written communication plan by asking to see the plan.
  • Ask to see evidence that the plan has been reviewed (and updated as necessary) on an annual basis.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify that all required contacts are included in the communication plan by asking to see a list of the contacts with their contact information.
  • Verify that all contact information has been reviewed and updated at least annually by asking to see evidence of the annual review.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify that all required contacts are included in the communication plan by asking to see a list of the contacts with their contact information.
  • Verify that all contact information has been reviewed and updated at least annually by asking to see evidence of the annual review.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify the communication plan includes primary and alternate means for communicating with facility staff, federal, state, tribal, regional and local emergency management agencies by reviewing the communication plan.
  • Ask to see the communications equipment or communication systems listed in the plan.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify the communication plan includes a method for sharing information and medical (or for RNHCIs only, care) documentation for patients under the facility’s care, as necessary, with other health (or care for RNHCIs) providers to maintain the continuity of care by reviewing the communication plan.

o For RNCHIs, verify that the method for sharing patient information is based on a requirement for the written election statement made by the patient or his or her legal representative.

  • Verify the facility has developed policies and procedures that address the means the facility will use to release patient information to include the general condition and location of patients, by reviewing the communication plan

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify the communication plan includes a means of providing information about the facility’s needs, and its ability to provide assistance, to the authority having jurisdiction, the Incident Command Center, or designee by reviewing the communication plan.
  • For hospitals, CAHs, RNHCIs, inpatient hospices, PRTFs, LTC facilities, and ICF/IIDs, also verify if the communication plan includes a means of providing information about their occupancy.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify that the facility has a written training and testing (and for ESRD facilities, a patient orientation) program that meets the requirements of the regulation.
  • Verify the program has been reviewed and updated on, at least, an annual basis by asking for documentation of the annual review as well as any updates made.
  • Verify that ICF/IID emergency plans also meet the requirements for evacuation drills and training at §483.470(i).

 

Survey Procedures

  • Ask for copies of the facility’s initial emergency preparedness training and annual emergency preparedness training offerings.
  • Interview various staff and ask questions regarding the facility’s initial and annual training course, to verify staff knowledge of emergency procedures.
  • Review a sample of staff training files to verify staff have received initial and annual emergency preparedness training.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Ask to see documentation of the annual tabletop and full scale exercises (which may include, but is not limited to, the exercise plan, the AAR, and any additional documentation used by the facility to support the exercise.
  • Ask to see the documentation of the facility’s efforts to identify a full-scale community based exercise if they did not participate in one (i.e., date and personnel and agencies contacted and the reasons for the inability to participate in a community based exercise).
  • Request documentation of the facility’s analysis and response and how the facility updated its emergency program based on this analysis.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify that the hospital, CAH, and LTC facility has the required emergency and standby power systems to meet the requirements of the facility’s emergency plan and corresponding policies and procedures
  • Review the emergency plan for “shelter in place” and evacuation plans. Based on those plans, does the facility have emergency power systems or plans in place to maintain safe operations while sheltering in place?
  • For hospitals, CAHs, and LTC facilities which are under construction or have existing buildings being renovated, verify the facility has a written plan to relocate the EPSS by the time construction is completed

For hospitals, CAHs, and LTC facilities with generators:

  • For new construction that takes place between November 15, 2016 and is completed by November 15, 2017, verify the generator is located and installed in accordance with NFPA 110 and NFPA 99 when a new structure is built or when an existing structure or building is renovated.  The applicability of both NFPA 110 and NFPA 99 addresses only new, altered, renovated or modified generator locations.
  • Verify that the hospitals, CAHs and LTC facilities with an onsite fuel source maintains it in accordance with NFPA 110 for their generator, and have a plan for how to keep the generator operational during an emergency, unless they plan to evacuate.

 

Survey Procedures

  • Verify whether or not the facility has opted to be part of its healthcare system’s unified and integrated emergency preparedness program. Verify that they are by asking to see documentation of its inclusion in the program.
  • Ask to see documentation that verifies the facility within the system was actively involved in the development of the unified emergency preparedness program.
  • Ask to see documentation that verifies the facility was actively involved in the annual reviews of the program requirements and any program updates.
  • Ask to see a copy of the entire integrated and unified emergency preparedness program and all required components (emergency plan, policies and procedures, communication plan, training and testing program).
  • Ask facility leadership to describe how the unified and integrated emergency preparedness program is updated based on changes within the healthcare system such as when facilities enter or leave the system.

 

To close out this week’s bloggy goodness, Diagnostic Imaging just published a piece on emergency preparedness for radiology departments that I think is worth checking out: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/practice-management/emergency-preparedness-radiology . Imaging services are such a critical element of care giving (not to mention one of the largest financial investment areas of any healthcare organization) that a little extra attention on keeping things running when the world is falling (literally or figuratively) down around your ears. I think we can make the case that integration of all hospital services is likely to be a key element of preparedness evaluation in the future—this is definitely worthy of your consideration.

Any world that I’m welcome to…

Sometimes a confluence of happenings makes me really question the legitimacy of coincidence. For example, it can’t possibly be coincidence that our friends in Chicago use the backdrop of September to tell us how poorly we are faring relative to compliance in the management of the physical environment. Yet, like clockwork, September brings the “drop” of the most frequently cited standards (MFCS) during the first half of the year. (I did look back a few years to validate my pre-autumnal angst—they waited until October to publish the MFCSs in 2012.) And, for a really, really, really long time, the physical environment continues to maintain its hegemony in the hierarchy of findings.

In years past, we’ve analyzed and dissected the living heck out of the individual standards, looking at the EPs likely to be driving the numbers, etc. Anybody wishing to revisit any of those halcyon days, you can find the (not quite complete) collection here:

Anyhoooo… I really don’t see a lot of changes in what’s being found, though I will tell you that there has been a precipitous increase in the number of organizations that are “feeling the lash.” Last year’s most frequently cited standard, which deals with various and sundry conditions in the care environment (you might know it as EC.02.06.01, or perhaps not), was found in about 62% of organizations surveyed. This year, the percentage has increased to 68% of organizations surveyed, but that number was only good enough for 5th place—the most frequently cited standard (the one that deals with all that fire alarm and suppression system documentation*) was identified in a whopping 86% of the hospitals surveyed!

I think it’s important, at this point, to keep in mind that this is the first year of a “one and done” approach to surveying, with the decommissioning of “C” or rate-based performance elements. I don’t know that I have encountered too many places with absolutely perfect documentation across all the various inspection, testing, and maintenance activities relating to fire alarm and suppression system documentation. I also don’t know that I’ve been to too many places where the odd fire extinguisher in an offsite building didn’t get missed at some point over the course of a year, particularly if the landlord is responsible for the monthly inspections. Face it, unless you have the capacity to do all this stuff yourself (and I’m pretty sure I haven’t run into anyone who has unlimited resources), the folks charged with making this happen often don’t have an appreciation for what a missed fire extinguisher, missed smoke detector, etc., means to our sanity and our peace of mind.

As I’ve been saying right along, with the exceptions being management of the surgical environment and the management of behavioral health patients, what they are finding is not anything close to what I would consider big-ticket items. I refrain from calling the findings minutiae—while in many ways that is what they are, the impact on folks’ organizations is anything but minute. If the devil is indeed in the details, then someone wicked must have passed their CORI check for a survey job…

Relative to last week’s rant regarding policies; first a shout-out of thanks to Roger Hood, who tried to post on the website (and was unable to ) regarding the CMS surveyor Emergency Preparedness survey tool as a potential source for the TJC policy requirement. (It’s an Excel spreadsheet, which you can find here, in the downloads menu near the bottom of the page: Surveyor Tool – EP Tags.) While I “see” that a lot of the sections invoke “policies and procedures,” I still believe that you can set things up with the Emergency Plan (Operations / Response / Preparedness—maybe one day everyone will use the same middle for this) as your primary organizational “policy” and then manage everything else as procedures. I suppose to one degree or another, it’s something of an exercise in semantics, but I do know that managing policies can be a royal pain in the tuchus, so limiting the documents you have to manage as a “policies” seems to make more sense to me. But that may just be me being me…

*Update (9/7/17): Quick clarification (I could play the head cold card, but I should have picked up on this); the most frequently cited standard deals with fire suppression system stuff—gray fibrous material (GFM) on sprinkler heads, 18-inch storage, missing escutcheons, etc. While I suppose there is some documentation aspect to this, my characterization was a few bricks shy of a full load. Mea maxima culpa!

Thoughts and prayers for Houston; plus, thoughts on required ‘policies’

First off, thoughts and prayers going out to the embattled folks in Texas; I do a fair amount of work in Texas, including the Houston area, and while I have absolute confidence in folks’ ability to respond to and recover from catastrophic events, I also know that this is going to be a very tough next little while for that part of the world. Hurricane Harvey will likely fade from the headlines, but the impact will linger past the news cycle, so don’t forget about these folks in the weeks to come. Thanks!

As I was casting about for a subject for this week’s missive, I happened upon a news item in Health Facilities Management This Week (HFMTW) that outlines some of the pending changes to the ambulatory care / office-based surgery medication management standards and the potential further impact of those changes on some of the EC performance elements in those environments. The changes are pretty much focused on emergency power as a function of being able to provide medication dispensing and refrigeration during emergencies.

Now, I have absolutely no issue with making provisions for the safe physical management of medications during power outages, etc.—it is a critical part of the delivery of safe and appropriate care to patients in any setting, and the more we can do to prepare for any outages, etc., the greater the likelihood of continuity of services if something does happen. What really caught my eye in the TJC blog entry cited in HFMTW (you can find the blog here) is something about half-way down the page titled “Emergency Back-Up Policies.”

At the outset of this discussion, I will tell you that, in most instances, I am no big fan of “policies.” In my mind, mostly what a policy represents is an opportunity to get into trouble for not following said policy. So, the question I wrestle with is whether we need to be mandated to have specific policies in order to appropriately manage our facilities, including preparing to respond to emergencies. For example, I am not entirely certain that a policy is going to make the difference in how well hospitals in the Houston area are responding to Hurricane Harvey (at the time of this writing, there are hospitals facing evacuation), though I would be happy to hear otherwise. I just have a hard time believing that having a policy is the answer to life’s problems; I am absolutely fine with requiring hospitals and other healthcare organizations to have a process in place to ensure appropriate management of medications during power outages, etc.—and I’m reasonably confident that those processes already exist in most, if not all, applicable environments.

I don’t know, maybe some folks do need to be told what to do, but I can’t help but think that those folks are fairly limited in number. And the blog even indicates that “there is no specific direction on the content of the policy”, but publishing this blog is going to force the issue during survey. I don’t know, when you look at the Conditions of Participation, etc., there are really very few policies that are required. It seems a bit odd to think that introducing new requirements for policy will somehow address some heretofore unresolved issue (or something). This one just doesn’t feel “right” to me…

Reefing a sail at the edge of the world…

What to do, what to do, what to do…

A couple of CMS-related items for your consideration this week, both of which appear to be rather user-friendly toward accredited organizations. (Why do I have this nagging feeling that this is going to result in some sort of ugly backlash for hospitals?)

Back in May, we discussed the plans CMS had for requiring accreditation organizations (AOs) to make survey results public, and it appears that, upon what I can only imagine was intense review and consideration, the CMS-ers have elected to pull back from that strategy. The decision, according to news sources, is based on the sum and substance of a portion of Section 1865 of the Social Security Act, which states:

(b) The Secretary may not disclose any accreditation survey (other than a survey with respect to a home health agency) made and released to the Secretary by the American Osteopathic Association or any other national accreditation body, of an entity accredited by such body, except that the Secretary may disclose such a survey and information related to such a survey to the extent such survey and information relate to an enforcement action taken by the Secretary.

So, that pretty much brings that whole thing to a screeching halt—nice work of whoever tracked that one down. Every once in a while, law and statute work in favor of the little folk. So, we Lilliputians salute whomever tracked that one down—woohoo!

In other CMS news, the Feds issued a clarification relative to the annual inspection of smoke barrier doors (turns out the LSC does not specifically require this for smoke doors in healthcare occupancies) as well as delaying the drop-dead date for initial compliance with the requirements relating to the annual inspection of fire doors. January 1, 2018 is the new date. If you haven’t gotten around to completing the fire door inspection, I would heartily recommend you do so as soon as you can—more on that in a moment. So, good news on two fed fronts—it’s almost like Christmas in August! But I do have a couple of caveats…

I am aware of 2017 surveys since July in which findings were issued because the inspection process had not been completed, and, based on past knowledge, etc., it is unlikely that those findings would be “removable” based on the extended initial compliance date. (CMS strongly indicates that once a survey finding is issued in a report, the finding should stay, even if there was compliance at the time of survey.) So hopefully this will not cause too much heartburn for folks.

The other piece of this is performance element #2 under the first standard in the Life Safety chapter. (This performance element is not based on anything specifically required by the LSC or the Conditions of Participation—yet another instance of our Chicagoan friends increasing the degree of difficulty for ensuring compliance without having a whole mess of statutory support, but I digress.) The requirement therein is for organizations to perform a building assessment to determine compliance with the Life Safety chapter—and this is very, very important—in time frames defined by the hospital. I will freely admit that this one didn’t really jump out at me until recently, and my best advice is to get going with defining the time frame for doing those building assessments; it kind of “smells” like a combination of a Building Maintenance Program (BMP) and Focused Standards Assessment (FSA), so this might not be that big a deal, though I think I would encourage you to make very sure that you clearly indicate the completion of this process, even if you are using the FSA process as the framework for doing so. In fact, that might be one way to go about it—the building assessment to determine compliance with the Life Safety chapter will be completed as a function of the annual FSA process. I can’t imagine that TJC would “buy” anything less than a triennial frequency, but the performance element does not specify, so maybe, just maybe…

We hold these truths…

In the wake of the high-rise fire in London a few weeks ago, those of you with high-rise facilities are probably going to experience some intensified attentions from your local fire folks (it’s already started in Houston). Any time there is a catastrophic fire with loss of life, it tends to result in an escalation in the interests of the various AHJ’s overseeing fire safety. While I suspect that your facilities are not at risk to the extent the conditions at the Grenfell Tower appear to have been, it is very likely that your locals are going to want to come out and kick the tires a little more swiftly/demonstrably than they have in the past. And, since we are responsible for a fair number of folks who are not (or at least less than) capable of getting themselves out in a fire, I think there is a very strong possibility that scrutiny will extend to non-high-rise facilities as well. I think we can say for pretty much certain that the regulatory folks probably didn’t miss this as a news story, and it’s not a very big leap to want to apply any lessons learned to how their areas of responsibility would fare under intensified scrutiny.

As a related aside, one of the challenges that I periodically face in my consulting engagements is the pushback of “it’s always been like this and we’ve never been cited” or something similar. My experience has been that a lot of times, the difference between a good survey and a not-so-good survey can be the surveyor taking a left turn instead of a right, etc. We have certainly covered the subject of imperfect buildings and how to find them (they are, after all, everywhere you look), so I won’t belabor the point, but this probably means that the focus on the physical environment is going to continue apace, if not (and I shudder at the thought) more so. We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us, folks—let’s get those sleeves rolled up!

Finally, as a head’s up, there’s going to be a webinar in August hosted by HC Info on strategies for meeting the CMS guidance (almost makes it sound helpful, doesn’t it) relative to the management of legionella risk that we covered a few weeks back. (Apparently space is limited, so you might want to get right on this: http://hcinfo.com/legionella-compliance.)

Something (nothing official, just an intense feeling) tells me that this is likely going to be a significant survey focus over the next little while, so I’m in favor of gathering as much expert information, etc. as possible. Again, while I have no reason to think that most folks are not appropriately managing these types of risks, I also know that the survey expectation bar appears to have been raised to an almost impossible-to-attain level. To echo the motto of the Boy Scouts—Be Prepared!

Horrors beyond contemplation

It is impossible to capture, or even comment on, the events that transpired at the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center in New York at the end of last month with anything less than abject horror. There have been lots of news stories about the various events that contributed to what happened, so I will let you investigate the causative factors on your own. But having checked out the available information, I can’t help but feel almost powerless when it comes to being able to provide any sort of guidance relative to the compliance aspects of preparing for such an event.

I think I can say, without much fear of contradiction, that this is likely to create an additional focal point for TJC surveys this year (so, keeping count, we have ligature risks; management of environmental conditions including temperature, humidity, air pressure relationships; intermediate- and high-level disinfection activities; workplace violence, including active shooter). But I still keep coming back to Sentinel Event Alert #45, “Preventing violence in the health care setting,” and I keep pondering the import of that one word: preventing.

Much as we have discussed in the past with a whole bunch of topics, at what point can we say that we have reduced the risk associated with X, Y and/or Z to the full extent possible? It would be an amazing thing to be able to put in place measures and strategies that could actually prevent something (really anything) bad from happening, but I have yet to encounter many instances in which prevention is actually achieved. Do we work towards that as a goal every moment of every day? Absolutely! But I don’t know how you “prevent” what happened at Bronx-Lebanon.

Until we have sufficiently sophisticated early detection for armed persons, aberrant behavior, etc. (we can’t have metal detectors at the front door of everyone’s home, can’t do a behavioral health assessment at everyone’s front door either), the purpose of looking at this is to ensure that there is an appropriate response, be it de-escalation or run, hide, fight. From what I gather, the response at Bronx-Lebanon was in keeping with appropriate levels of preparedness. As is usually the case with human beings, I suspect that there will be valuable lessons learned in reviewing what happened, but the fact of the matter is that this could have been so, so much worse.

At any rate, we know this is likely to be a focus during survey (information from a survey just this past week indicates a very significant focus on the management of violent events), and I think one of the most important preparation activities is to share information with the healthcare safety community. To that end, I wanted to alert you to an opportunity to do just that: next week, on Thursday, July 20, 2017, HCPro will present a webinar, “Emergency Preparedness for SNFs: How to Plan for, Respond to, and Recover From an Armed Intruder/Active Shooter Event.” While the title indicates a focus on skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), the general concepts are very much applicable to all healthcare environments and, truthfully, couldn’t be more timely.

I’ve worked in healthcare long enough to recall a time when this level of violence occurred in environments other than health care, but I think we have to operate under the thought that it is only a matter of time before our organizations come face-to-face with the reality of 21st Century existence. Although I wish it were otherwise, not focusing on preparing is no longer an option.