RSSAll Entries in the "Life Safety Code" Category

Gathering gobs of Grinchiness

As the ol’ Physical Environment Portal remains barren of new goodies (maybe we will awake the morning of December 25 and find crisply wrapped interpretations under the tree—oh, what joy for every girl and boy!), we will turn yet again to the annals of Perspectives to mayhap glean some clarity from that august source of information. I suspect that as the December issue is chock-a-block full of life safety and emergency management goodness, we’ll be chatting about the contents for a couple of sessions. First, the big news (or what I think/suspect is the news that is likely to have the most far-reaching implications for survey year 2017): a survey process change relative to the evaluation of Interim Life Safety Measures. Actually, I should note that, as the changes were effective November 17, 2016, those of you experiencing surveys ‘twixt then and the end of the year will also be subject to this slight alteration.

So, effective 11/17/16 (the 46th anniversary of the recording of Elton John’s landmark live album 11/17/70—coincidence? Probably…), the evaluation of your ILSM process (inclusive of the policy, any risk assessments, etc.) will be expanded to include discussion of how, and to what extent, ILSMs will be implemented when there are LS deficiencies identified during your survey that (presumably) cannot be immediately corrected, based on your ILSM policy. Sounds pretty straightforward, but it does make me wonder how the LS surveyor is going to have enough time to review your documentation, thoroughly survey your facility, and then sit down to review any LS findings and discuss how your ILSM policy/process comes into play. I have to tell you, when I first read this, my thought immediately went to “one more day of LS surveying to endure for any reasonably-sized hospital” and, taking into consideration all the other changes going on, while I hope I am incorrect, it does make me wonder, wonder, wonder. Also, the ILSM(s) to be implemented until the deficiency is resolved will be noted in the final survey report, so it probably behooves you to have a process in place to be able to FIFI (find it, fix it) every LS deficiency as it is encountered—and since everything counts with the abolition of the “C” performance elements, you know what you probably need to do.

At any rate, with the announcement that we can expect full coverage of the ILSM standard, there was also a note that an additional performance element has been added to provide for any additional ILSMs you might want to use that are not specifically addressed in the other performance elements for this standard. I’m not exactly sure how this would play out from a practical standpoint; maybe you could specifically include in your policy a provision for checking exit routes in construction only when the space is occupied, etc. As near as I can remember, the only instance I can think of somebody being cited for having an ILSM in their policy that did not precisely reflect the performance elements in the standard was back when the EP regarding the prohibition of smoking was discontinued from the standard; there were a few persnickety surveyors who cited folks for not having removed that from their policy (persnickety is as persnickety does), but that’s all I can think of.

Next week, we’ll chat a bit about some of the pending changes to the Life Safety chapter wrought by the adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code®. In a word, riveting!

Now bring me some sticky findings—and bring them right here!

Another hodgepodge of stuff this week. I suppose with the holidays, I could be lazy and break these up into smaller chunks of bloggy goodness—maybe next week, but first some ponderings.

I was penning some thoughts relative to the current state of accreditation and a common theme kept reasserting itself: the recent changes are going to absolutely nothing to help decrease the number of findings in the physical environment and, in fact, are much more likely to increase the number (and probably types) of findings experienced during regulatory inspections. Now, I suppose this is rather an extension of the alignment with CMS (I mean, whoever received a visit from those folks and escaped completely unscathed? Perhaps some, but not a whole bunch, I’d venture to guess) and how that philosophy (scorched earth seems like a particularly apropos descriptor—at least at the moment) aligns with the idea/sense/concept that perfection is a noble goal, but not particularly obtainable on this particular space-spinning blue sphere. I’ve said it before, I’ll (no doubt) say it again: they are going to find “stuff” when they visit you—they have to! But that brings me back to the age-old question of what value does this level of attention to minutia bring to the process. I don’t think there’s anyone among us that believes that we have achieved a level of perfection of heretofore untold proportions—has a lot to do with why we have to show up at work every day, n’est-ce pas? There has got to be a better way to facilitate improvement in the management of the healthcare environment without brandishing the regulatory equivalent of a sharp stick (if not a cattle prod). So, as we wind down the 2016 season, those one-off OFIs have now been converted into a cluster of regulatory middle fingers—ouch! Okay, hopping down from the soapbox.

In the December 2016 issue of Perspectives, there is a fair discussion on how the Interim Life Safety Measures (ILSM) process is going to be utilized (perhaps even evaluated) during the survey process. In the October Perspectives, there was coverage of how a completed project (that involved ILSM implementation) would be reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness of the ILSM process. There was also discussion indicating that construction-related deficiencies would not be cited as specific RFIs but rather as a function of the ILSM performance elements. But the December publication offers yet another nuance to the process—when you have a Life Safety Code® deficiency identified during survey, there will be a resultant “discussion” of the deficiency and an inquiry as to which ILSM will be implemented to protect building occupants until such time as the deficiency (or deficiencies) is corrected. I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that the requirement is to implement your ILSM policy, which would then provide criteria for determining what, if any, of the ILSMs would be implemented. I also think that now would be a really good time to dust off your ILSM policy and run it through a couple of test deficiencies to ensure that your policy supports a reasonable approach to ILSM implementation. Finally (on this subject), in the days when clarification of findings was a worthwhile endeavor, it never “paid” to fix stuff during the survey (fixing a condition was tantamount to admitting that you had messed up), but now that everything gets cited, the simplest ILSM to implement is “none at all because we fixed the condition.” Can somebody give me a “that’s a pain in the posterior”? Amen!

As a final thought (or perhaps thoughts) for the week, I think we have to treat any construction or renovation activities as an invasive procedure, so we need to come up a process akin to the Universal Protocol adopted by the folks in surgery to make sure that everyone is on the same page before the activity starts (and that especially includes contractor staff—I am absolutely convinced that we could do a better job with that process).  As an offshoot of this, I think it might be time to adopt a process for periodically evaluating the construction/renovation management process, much as we evaluate the 6+1 EC/EM functions. I can’t think of a single “normal” process that has more potential for disruption, angst, chaos—you name it—than the construction and renovation process. Some folks are fortunate enough to have in-house resources for the management of these activities, but even then there can be opportunities for improvement–the communications process springs to mind as being frequently flawed.

Until next time, I bid you as much holiday cheer as you can tolerate!

History shows again and again how standards (and EPs) point out the folly of men…

It’s beginning to look like the proofreaders in Chicago must be enduring some late nights watching the Cubs! I don’t know about you folks, but I rely rather heavily on the regular missives from The Joint Commission, collectively known as Joint Commission E-Alerts. The E-Alerts deliver regular packages of yummy goodness to my email box (okay, that may be a little hyperbolic) and yesterday’s missive was no exception. Well, actually, there was an exception—more on that in a moment.

While it did not get top billing in the Alert (which seems kind of odd given what’s been going on this year), the pre-publication changes to the Life Safety chapter of the accreditation manual have been revealed, including comparison tables between what we had in January 2016 and what we can expect in January 2017. Interestingly enough, the comparison tables include the Environment of Care (EC) chapter stuff as well (though the EC chapter did not merit a mention in the E-Alert), so there’s lots of information to consider (which we will be doing over the course of the next little while) and some subtle alterations to the standards/EP language. For example (and this is the first “change” that I noted in reviewing the 112 pages of standards/EPs), the note for EC.02.02.01, EP 9 (the management of risks associated with hazardous gases and vapors) expands the “reach” to specifically include waste anesthetic gas disposal and laboratory rooftop exhaust (yes, I know…very sexy stuff!). It does appear that at least some of the changes (tough to figure out the split between what is truly “new” and what is merely a clarification of existing stuff—check out the note under EC.02.03.05, EP 1 regarding supervisory signal devices because it provides a better sense of what could be included in the mix). Another interesting change occurs under EC.02.03.05 (and this applies to all the testing EPs) is that where previously the requirement was for the completion dates of the testing to be documented, now the requirement actually states that the results of the testing are to be documented in addition to the completion dates. Again, a subtle change in the language and certainly nothing that they haven’t been surveying to. Oh, and one addition to the canon is the annual inspection and testing of door assemblies “by individuals who can demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the operating components of the door being tested. Testing begins with a pre-test visual inspection; testing includes both sides of the opening.” At any rate, I will keep plowing through the comparison table. (Remember in the old days, it would be called a crosswalk. Has the 21st century moved so far ahead that folks don’t know what a crosswalk is anymore?)

The top billing in yesterday’s All Hallows Eve E-Alert (making it an Eve-Alert, I suppose) went to the latest installment in that peppiest of undertakings, the Physical Environment Portal. Where the proofreaders comment comes into play is that the Alert mentions the posting of the information relative to LS.02.01.30, (which happened back in August) but when you click on the link, it takes you to the update page, where the new material is identified as covering LS.02.01.35, so there is updated material, though you couldn’t really tell by the Alert. So, we have general compliance information for the physical environment folks, some kicky advice and information for organizational leadership, and (Bonus! Bonus! Bonus!) information regarding the clinical impact of appropriately maintaining fire suppression systems (there is mention of sprinkler systems, but also portable fire extinguishers). I’d be interested to see if anyone finds the clinical impact information to be of particular use/effectiveness. I don’t know that compliance out in the field (or, more appropriately, noncompliance) is based on how knowledgeable folks are about what to do and what not to do, though perhaps it is the importance of the fire suppression systems and the reasons for having such systems (Can you imagine having to evacuate every time the fire alarm activates? That would be very stinky.) that is getting lost in the translation. I have no reason to think that the number of findings is going to be decreasing in this area (if you’re particularly interested, the comparison table section on LS.02.01.35 begins on p. 80 of that document—any changes that I can see do appear likely to make compliance easier), so I guess we’ll have to keep an eye on the final pages of survey year 2016 and the opening of the 2017 survey season. Be still my beating heart!

I wanna know: Have you ever seen the rain?

In our intermittently continuing series on the (final!) adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code®, we turn to the one area about which I have still the most concerns—the magic land of NFPA 99. My primary concern is that while NFPA 99 contains lots and lots of references to risk assessments and the processes therein, I’m still not entirely convinced that the CMS oversight of the regulatory compliance process is going to embrace risk assessments to the extent that would allow us to plot our own compliance courses. I guess I will have to warily keep my fingers crossed and keep an eye on what actually occurs during CMS surveys of the physical environment. So, on to this week’s discussion…

When considering the various and sundry requirements relating to the installation and ongoing inspection, testing and maintenance of electrical system components, one of the key elements is the management of risk associated with electrical shock in wet procedure locations. NFPA 99 defines a wet procedure location as “(t)he area in a patient care room where a procedure is performed that is normally subject to wet conditions while patients are present, including standing fluids on the floor or drenching of the work area, either of which condition is intimate to the patient or staff.”

Typically, based on that description, the number of areas that would “rule in” for consideration as wet procedure locations is pretty limited (and depending on the nature, etc., of the procedures being performed maybe even less limited than that). But in the modern age, the starting point for this discussion (and this is specifically provided for under section 6.3.2.2.8.4 of the 2012 edition of NFPA 99) is that operating rooms are to be considered wet procedure locations—unless a risk assessment conducted by the healthcare governing body (yow!) determines otherwise (all my yammering over the years about risk assessments is finally paying off—woo hoo!). By the way, there is a specific definition of “governing body”: the person or persons who have overall legal responsibility for the operations of a healthcare facility. This means you’re going to have to get your boss (and your boss’ boss and maybe your boss’ boss’ boss) to play in the sandbox on this particular bit of assessmentry.

Fortunately, our good friends at ASHE have developed a lovely risk assessment tool (this is a beta version) to assist in this regard and they will share the tool with you in exchange for just a few morsels of information (and, I guess, a pledge to provide them with some useful feedback as you try out the tool—they do ask nicely, so I hope you would honor their request if you check this out—and I really think you should). Since I’m pretty certain that we can attribute a fair amount of expertise to any work product emanating from ASHE (even free stuff!), I think we can reasonably work with this tool in the knowledge that we would be able to present it to a surveyor and be able to discuss how we made the necessary determinations relative to wet procedure locations. And speaking of surveys and surveyors, I also don’t think it would be unreasonable to think that this might very well be an imminent topic of conversation once November 5 rolls around and we begin our new compliance journey in earnest. Remember, there is what I will call an institutional tendency to focus on what has changed in the regulations as opposed to what remains the same. And I think that NFPA 99 is going to provide a lot of fodder for the survey process over the next little while. I mean think about it, we’re still getting “dinged” for requirements that are almost two decades old—I think it will be a little while before we get our arms (and staff) around the ins and outs of the new stuff. Batten down the hatches: Looks like some rough weather heading our way!

At any rate, here’s the link to the wet procedure location assessment tool.

Hope everyone has a safe and festively spooky (or spookily festive) All Hallows Eve!

If accredited you wish to be, you must answer these questions three!

And other tales: If you thought the dervishes were whirling last week…you ain’t seen nothing!

Hortal hears a chortle from the portal: The much-anticipated (you tell me how hyperbolic that characterization might be…) return of updated content for the Joint Commission (oops, THE Joint Commission)’s Physical Environment Portal (PEP) has finally reached these shores. O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! He chortled in his joy (from Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll; see, chortling has been around for a while…).

The new content breaks down into three sections: one for facilities and safety folks, one for leadership, and one for clinical folks, lending further emphasis to the ongoing melding  of the management of the physical environment into a tripod-like structure (tripods having more stability and strength than a one- or two-legged structure—think about that one for a moment). At any rate, interestingly enough, the suggested solutions for both the clinical and leadership “legs” of the tripod are aimed at “supporting” the facilities “leg” through endorsement of the key process(es) as well as keeping smoke doors closed, not compromising closing devices (how may doors can a doorstop stop if a doorstop could stop doors?), and participation during construction activities. So, if you visit the noted URLs, you will find a whole bunch of stuff, some of it downloadable, to share with the other “legs” in your organization. It seems pretty evident to me, that at least part of the intent of the information shared, particularly the stuff earmarked for leadership and clinical folks, is to ratchet up the “investment” of those two groups in the management of the physical environment. On the face of it, nobody in healthcare has “time” to shoulder this burden on their own, hence the practical application of the tripod (sort of: that may be a bit of a reach on my part, but there’s some truth lurking around somewhere—and we will ferret it out).

Also breaking recently was the information (funneled from our fine friends at ASHE) that TJC is going to be including a set of three questions in the pre-building tour portion of the survey process (I think this is in addition to other questions that might be asked, including whether you have any identified Life Safety Code® (LSC) deficiencies). The intent, as described by Jim Kendig, TJC’s field director for surveyor management and development (I worked with Jim, like, a million years ago. Hi, Jim!), is to gather some pertinent/useful information before setting out to tour your facility.

Question 1: What type of firestopping is used in the facility?

Question 2: What is your organization’s policy regarding accessing interstitial spaces and ceiling panel removal?

Question 3: Which materials are used for high-level disinfection or sterilization?

On the face of it, I’m thinking the response to Question 1 might very well be the most challenging as I can’t recall too many facilities that have just one manufacturer’s product protecting their rated barriers. My consultative advice is you would be well-served to have some sort of document that identifies the various products in use, where they “live” in your organization, perhaps even color pictures of the products in situ so the surveyors will know what they are looking for (and please don’t try to pass off that yellow expanding foam stuff as an appropriate product—no point in getting into a urination competition with a surveyor over that). As to the other questions, as near as I can tell they’re pretty straightforward; the surveyor is going to have plan for extra time if a containment has to be erected/constructed for every ceiling tile removal or perhaps they will identify specific locations for inspections and just run through those one after the other. As to high-level disinfection and sterilization, lots of environmental and infection control opportunities for bungles there (BTW, it’s probably a very good idea to have a very good idea where those processes are occurring; it can be more widespread than you would prefer).

As a final thought for this week, I would encourage you to participate in ASHE’s survey of the potential impact of CMS’s requirement for all hospital outpatient surgery departments to be classified as Ambulatory Surgical occupancies under chapters 20 and 21 of the 2012 LSC. There is a fair amount of potential that this requirement is going to have an impact on facilities in which dental or oral surgery is being performed, plastic surgery, endoscopy, laser surgeries, etc. To help with the assessment of the impact of this change, ASHE is asking folks to complete a survey for each of the facilities you oversee that will be affected; you can find the survey here. https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form?EQBCT=c66f01e829184b648b4b0db3fd2cc552

I think it’s probably well worth your time to at least see what they’re asking about; I’m beginning to think that we are going to look back on 2016 as a really ugly year (compliance, popular culture, you name it!). Where’s that fast-forward button…or do we talk to Mr. Peabody and Sherman about that Wayback Machine…

Devilish details and the whirling dervishes of compliance

In the absence of any new content on The Joint Commission’s Physical Environment Portal (the PEP ain’t none too peppy of late), I guess we’re going to have to return to our old standby for the latest and greatest coming out of Chicago: Perspectives! The August Perspectives has a fair amount of content pertinent to our little circle, so it probably makes too much sense to cover those key items and announcements.

The front page headline (as it should be) relates the ongoing tale of the dearly departing PFI process (which, I suppose, kind of makes this something of an obituary). Effective August 1, 2016, open PFI items will no longer be reviewed by the survey team nor will they be included in the Final Report generated by the survey. All Life Safety chapter deficiencies will become Requirements for Improvement (RFI) with a 60-day submittal window for your Evidence of Standards Compliance (and remember, one of the other TJC practices that departed this year was the “C” performance elements, so all of those pesky Opportunities for Improvement (OFI) at the end of your past survey reports will now become RFIs). Also, only equivalency requests related to survey events will be reviewed. More on that part of the big picture in a moment.

Also in the August Perspectives comes the official print announcement that the requirements of the 2012 Life Safety Code® will not be surveyed until November 1, 2016 (which should make for a very interesting few months in survey land for those of you moving towards the “closing” of your survey window), giving everyone on the regulatory compliance team a chance to complete the online education program, and give CMS time to update the survey forms and K-Tags. Apparently, the self-directed education program takes about 20 hours to complete (you can see the entire CMS memorandum here). The education program includes a pre- and post-test, and requires a passing score of 85%. I’m kind of curious about the format (I’m thinking perhaps the classic multiple choice format) and even more curious about whether they would ever make such a thing available to safety and facilities professionals. Presumably this means that whoever comes to your door on Tuesday, November 1 to survey your building will have passed the test. Would it be rude to ask them how they fared?

Next we turn to the “Clarifications and Expectations” column which, for all intents and purposes, is something of a recap of the PFI stuff, with the additional indication that TJC will no longer offer extensions and the automatic six-month grace period is no longer available. Ostensibly, this means that those of you with open PFIs had probably better start cleaning things up. I’m still waiting to see something (anything?) on the subject of the inaccessible fire and smoke dampers; I think I’ve mentioned previously of instances in which CMS has forced the issue of correcting the dampers, but I can’t help but think that that could be a very big pain in the posterior for some folks. I’d like to think that if these were simple to fix, they would already have been corrected (we wouldn’t take advantage of the process, would we?) so this could create a fairly burdensome situation for folks.

For those archivists among you, there is some interesting background on the 60-day time limit. Section §488.28(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations states: “Ordinarily a provider or supplier is expected to take the steps needed to achieve compliance within 60 days of being notified of the deficiencies, but the State survey agency may recommend that additional time be granted by the Secretary in individual situations, if in its judgment, it is not reasonable to expect compliance within 60 days, for example, a facility must obtain the approval of its governing body, or engage in competitive bidding.” Now that does provide a little sense of what will “fly” if one is forced to ask for a time-limited waiver (TLW—another acronym for the alphabet soup of compliance), but it’s tough to say whether any flexibility extends beyond those elements (who would ever have thought that competitive bidding might be helpful!).

Anyway, one thing relating to the SOC/PFI maelstrom (at least tangentially—and not mentioned in the August Perspectives) is the question of whether or not the presentation of the categorical waivers at the beginning of the survey process is still required. Certainly, the effective adoption date of the 2012 LSC (July 5, 2016) might potentially be the tipping point for informing the survey team of any categorical waivers your organization might have adopted, but I think the most appropriate cutoff date (if you will) for this practice would be on November 1, 2016 when CMS (and its minions) are charged with surveying to the requirements of the 2012 LSC. My overarching thought in this regard is that presenting the waivers to the survey team at the start of the survey certainly doesn’t hurt you and since the 2000 edition of the LSC is still the primary survey reference, it seems most appropriate to continue highlighting the waivers for the time being.

Back to Perspectives: One final EC-related item, for those of you with memory care units, there is specific coverage of the expectations under EC.02.06.01 relative to patient stimulation (or overstimulation), outdoor spaces for patients and residents with dementia, and other environmental elements. While these requirements apply to the Memory Care Certification chapter of the Nursing Care Center manual, again, if you happen to have a memory care unit within your span of control, you might find these expectations/performance elements useful in managing the environment. Even when not required, sometimes there are elements worth considering. After all, improving the patient experience as a function of the physical environment is one of our most important charges.

Maybe these maps and legends have been misunderstood…

I don’t know about you folks, but The Joint Commission’s discontinuation of the PFI process has left me in a rather unsettled state. Heretofore, I think many of us (and I will include myself among that number) relied on TJC to provide some level of illumination into the inner workings of compliance as a function of what CMS is requiring. As I think I noted earlier, I was fully cognizant that CMS has been no particular fan of the PFI process as a means of ensuring compliance with the Life Safety Code®, but (presumably) there was always a tacit understanding—falling somewhat short of acceptance—that the PFI process wasn’t causing enough of a ripple in the fabric of compliance to warrant any direct intervention.

And now we find ourselves officially in August and still awaiting the arrival of the latest modular addition to The Joint Commission’s Physical Environment Portal (PEP), which was “scheduled” for a July release (at least that’s been the info posted on the portal site). At this point, I’m starting to think that the life safety modules may be on hold until the updated Life Safety chapter is unveiled later this year (presumably sometime ’twixt now and November). But the greater concern I have (and hopefully this is just a hyperbolic response to the deluge of changes) is whether the information contained in the PEP (and, to some degree, the physical environment FAQs) is as valuable (Useful? Reliable?) when it comes to keeping in line with CMS’ expectations. I think to one extent or another, we all relied on TJC as an arbiter/translator of how the physical environment Conditions of Participation could be interpreted/implemented from a practical/operational standpoint, but now I can’t help but wonder if that status has been torn asunder along with the PFI process. I’m probably over-thinking this, but I don’t have a feeling of comfort with the current state of things. I guess we shall see what we shall see—I, as always, remain optimistic, but, for whatever reason, it seems to be more of a struggle at the moment. But enough of that, for the moment…

As I was checking to see if there was an update to be found, I stumbled upon a missive in TJC’s leadership blog that I do not recall having seen before. So let me take you back about 10 months to those halcyon days of the early chortlings of the portal… (insert going back in time sound effects here).

In looking at this particular missive (penned by one G. Mills, Director, Department of Engineering—you can find the whole magillah here), there is some ground covered that is among my most favoritest of topics: the universality of the responsibilities when it comes to the management of the physical environment (and for those you who are keeping count, I have no idea how many times I’ve discussed this particular topic, but I’m going to guess it’s well into double digits. And that’s not even counting the number of times I’ve had variations of this conversation with clients…). In the blog, Mr. Mills notes that “…the patient care environment is not owned by one group in the healthcare setting.” I couldn’t agree more and yet I still (still, still, still!) encounter organizations that have not fully embraced that concept—which results in very little surprise on my part that eight of the 10 most frequently cited standards are in the physical environment. Mr. Mills goes on to say, “(W)e cannot look to one group to keep the area clean, another to keep the area warm/cool and then another group to treat patients independently.” But organizations continue to do just that, get bounced around during surveys, and still (still, still, still!) fail to grasp the team concept of managing the environment.

Now it’s certainly not every organization that has these issues, but until every organization gets “down” with this as a way of conducting the business of healthcare, the EC/LS findings will continue to pile up. The silos of clinical and non-clinical functions in healthcare organizations are no longer a tenable model—I’ve said it before and I will (no doubt) say it again—every individual working at every level in every healthcare organization is a caregiver. I’ll give you the direct/indirect split, but taking care of the patient in the bed is the role and responsibility of everyone. It is past time for a new paradigm—let’s make it happen—even without updates to the PEP!

Regardless of what happens in regards to the TJC/CMS dynamic, I think that healthcare as an industry needs to embrace this model for management of the physical environment. I know on an individual basis, everyone is wicked busy, but the success or failure of the management of the physical environment is a function of how ingrained the “see something, say something” philosophy is at point of care/point of service. You and I both know that I could say that I will speak of this no more, but you and I also know that the chances of my avoiding this topic are somewhere between slim and none…

Blame it on Cain…

We’ll see how long this particular screed goes on when we get to the end…

In my mind (okay, what’s left of it), the “marketing” of safety and the management of the physical environment is an important component of your program. I have also learned over time that it is very rare indeed when one can “force” compliance onto an organization. Rather, I think you have to coax them into seeing things your way. At this point, I think we can all agree that compliance comes in many shapes, colors, sizes, etc., with the ideal “state” of compliance representing what it is easiest (or most convenient) for staff to do. If we make compliance too difficult (both from a practical standpoint, as well as the conceptual), we tend to lose folks right out of the gate—and believe you me—we need everybody on board for the duration of the compliance ride.

For instance, I believe one of the cornerstone processes/undertakings on the compliance ride is the effectiveness of the reporting of imperfections in the physical environment (ideally, that report is generated in the same moment—or just after—the imperfection “occurs”). There are few things that frustrate me more than a wall that was absolutely pristine the day before, and is suddenly in possession of a 2- to 3-inch hole! There’s no evidence that something bored out of the wall (no debris on the floor under the hole), so the source of the hole must have been something external to the hole (imagine that!). So you go to check and see if some sort of notification had occurred and you find out, not so much. Somebody had to be there when it happened and who knows how many folks had walked by since its “creation,” but it’s almost like the hole is invisible to the naked eye or perhaps there’s some sort of temporal/spatial disruption going on—but I’m thinking probably not.

I’m reasonably certain that one can (and does) develop an eye/sense for some of the more esoteric elements of compliance (e.g., the surveyor who opens a cabinet drawer, reaches in, and pulls out the one expired item in the drawer), but do we need to educate folks to recognize holes in the wall as something that might need a wee bit of fixing? It would seem so…

At any rate, in trying to come up with some sort of catch phrase/mantra, etc., to promote safety, I came up with something that I wanted to share with the studio audience. I’d appreciate any feedback you’d be inclined to share:

WE MUST BE ABLE:

CAPABLE

RELIABLE

ACCOUNTABLE

SUSTAINABLE

I’m a great believer in the power of the silly/hokey concept when you’re trying to inspire folks; when you think of the most memorable TV ads, the ones that are funny tend to be the most memorable in terms of concept and product (the truly weird ads are definitely memorable, but more often than not I couldn’t tell you what product was being advertised). I think that as a four-part vision, the above might be pretty workable. What do you think?

This week in hell: What about the damn dampers?

We are certainly in the (very) early stages of the departure of The Joint Commission’s Plans for Improvement (PFI) process from our midst (Is it possible for a process to have abandonment issues? I suspect we’re going to be feeling something like it for quite some time to come.) and there continues to be much to chew on. This week, I’m going to break it down into a couple of chunks that will hopefully allow us to more easily digest this big mouthful of unpleasantness, but first, a rant (ooooh, big surprise):

 

  • I honestly don’t have a dog in this particular fight beyond my position as an observer of accreditation and regulatory compliance activities in healthcare, but I continue to “bump” up against the practice of TJC revealing substantive (and substantial) changes in forums that are not completely accessible to everyone with a dog in the fight. I don’t know about you, but my boss is generally inclined for me to be busy doing productive work, so I don’t oft (okay, never) get to the annual ASHE conference (and yes, I recognize the educational value, etc., of such gatherings, but, as you all probably know pretty well, that can be a very tough sell). Consequently, I (and perhaps a whole bunch of “yous” out there in the audience) was not present when the discontinuation of the PFI process was announced. I don’t know if there was a Q&A that followed the announcement, so I have no idea if questions were asked and answered, asked and deferred, asked and not answered, etc. I suspect if we all had known what was coming down the pike this year, between adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code® (LSC) and PFI getting kicked to the curb, we might all have made a little bit of an extra effort to get to ASHE (well, perhaps you would have—I was having way too much fun tripping around Texas). At any rate, at the very least, I would love to see a transcript of the presentation as well as any Q’s and A’s that might have occurred. As an alternative thought, I also believe that something this monumentally important is deserving of a free webinar from TJC that includes a live Q&A (or if not a live Q&A, answers to pre-submitted questions would be okay)—this has the potential to be enormously painful for facilities and safety folks over the next little while (the optimist in me says “little while,” my fear is fairly long while) and, as customers, I think those same facilities and safety folks deserve a little time with the powers that be.
  • So what do we do with the damn dampers? As near as I can tell (with absolutely no empirical data beyond the number of questions I’ve received on the topic), there are a fair number of folks who have taken advantage of the PFI process for managing inaccessible dampers. When the PFI process goes away, does this mean all those dampers have to be brought in to compliance within the 60-day window? I am truly hoping that something specific to this issue is forthcoming before folks start tying up all the mechanical contractors in the US. Perhaps there’s a categorical waiver in the future for this piece of business—I think that would be a nice surprise. One thing I can tell you is that I know of at least one hospital that CMS required to clean up the damper issues identified on the PFI, so I have no reason to think that leniency will be the order of the day.
  • For those of you that reflect the PFI process in either your management plans or your ILSM plans/policies, you should probably pull those out and update the process as a function of no PFI process (I’m still not quite over the initial shock of that). Certainly for many, many years, a fundamental part of the standards-based requirements relative to ILSM was the management of LSC deficiencies that could not be immediately corrected (or corrected immediately, depending on your perspective), which brings us squarely into the realm of the PFI process. At any rate, make sure you make a quick of any policies/processes (hey, maybe even in your work order system) to make sure that you expunge all evidence of the PFI process.
  • As to the discontinuation of the Basic Building Information component of the Statement of Conditions, one of the things that’s “driven” by the information contained therein is the number of survey days, based on the square footage of healthcare occupancies in your facility. I don’t believe that the square footage question is asked during the organizational application process (might be worth checking with the individual in your organization charged with filing the application to verify what may or may not be in the mix), which makes me wonder how they will make the determination if folks don’t update the eBBI information. I suppose they have a basic starting point now, so it probably won’t change that much, but I also think of the SOC as a great means of communicating certain information to the surveyors—existing waivers/equivalencies (which makes me wonder: are we looking at a day when all the existing waivers/equivalencies granted by TJC go away or at least have to be resubmitted to CMS?), locations and square footage of suites, level of sprinkler coverage, and other unique aspects of the building can all be memorialized in the comment section of the SOC. But if the surveyors aren’t going to look at the SOC any more, do we print out the information and provide it to them directly or does this become one more potential sticking point during a survey? I guess a lot of the same information can be included on the life safety drawings, but I know a lot of folks don’t have the wherewithal to manage the drawings themselves so they use an architect or fire protection engineer for updates, etc.

 

All that said, I guess we’ll just have to keep our fingers crossed that some level of sanity is restored to the process, but given the state of the world, I don’t think I’m going to be holding my breath while I wait.

Breaking news: PFIs take a flyer!

Well, I suppose there was a certain element of inevitability to this. First, the expulsion of the most global “FIs” in the Joint Commission arsenal—the Requirement for Improvement (RFI) and the Opportunity for Improvement (OFI)—which left only one FI to be expelled, our good friend and (sometimes) benefactor, the Plan for Improvement (PFI). And that day has come (I don’t think there are any intact FIs kicking around, but I could be mistaken…)!

In what will likely end up being filed under the “no good deed goes unpunished” category (I’m more or less characterizing the adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code® (LSC) as a good deed, though I will submit to you that, if only coincidentally, there has been an unleashing of a most distressing pile of poop), The Joint Commission has announced that, beginning August 1, 2016, it will eliminate the PFI process as a means of managing LSC deficiencies that cannot be immediately corrected and will take longer than 45 days to resolve. Yes, you did not misread that last sentence: say so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good bye (can I get an au revoir or adios?!?) to one of the most beloved characters in all of regulatory nuance. So, in place of the PFI process is an expectation for life safety deficiencies to be corrected within 60 days—unless, of course, you want to pursue a time-limited waiver with the friendly folks at your regional CMS office (don’t that sound like a party?). This information comes to us courtesy of the good folks at the American Society for Healthcare Engineering (ASHE), who provided this to members as an advisory released late yesterday afternoon.

When Jay Kumar, my editorial foil at BLR/HCPro asked me for my initial thoughts, there were several expletives that came to mind (and I suspect they are coursing through your collective craniums as well), but I do know that a fundamental means of having some element of control (even if it was somewhat illusory in nature) in managing conditions in the physical environment has pretty much been ripped from our hands. I guess we could look at this as one more piece of the “becoming more like CMS” movement that has been afoot for quite a few years now. Or maybe, as CMS never really accepted the PFI process as an alternative means of LSC compliance, they finally told TJC to cease and desist. I’m thinking this probably also pretty much quashes any thought that the Building Maintenance Program will ever be anything more than it is now (at this point, I’m not really sure what it is beyond a means of organizing the maintenance of certain life safety building features, not a bad thing, but not quite as compelling as it once was).

The process as outlined in the ASHE Advisory goes a little something like this:

 

  • Deficiencies will need to be corrected within 60 days of being identified unless the CMS regional office approves an extension.
  • All requests for extensions will be handled by CMS regional offices. However, The Joint Commission will allow facilities to submit requests and receive a receipt to show they are in the pipeline waiting for an extension.
  • The Joint Commission will not review open PFI items, and PFIs will not be a part of final reports.

Now before you get overly panicky, apparently we will still be able to use the PFI process as an “internal management process,” so everything’s good—right?

I guess we’re going to have to wait and see how this all unfolds in the field, but I have a sneaking suspicion that, of all the changes we’ve encountered this year, I suspect this one is going to result in the greatest amount of disruption, at least in the short term.

But hey, we work in healthcare—we embrace change! We grab change by the throat, throw it on the ground and kick it ’til it stops moving. We love change!