RSSAll Entries in the "The Joint Commission" Category

But I got the crystal ball, he said!

And he held it to the light…

In their (seemingly) never-ending quest to remain something (I’m not quite sure what that something might be, but I suspect it has to do with continuing bouts of hot water and CMS), our friends in Chicago are working towards modifying the process/documentation for providing post-survey Evidence of Standards Compliance (for the remainder of this piece, I will refer to the acronymically inclined ESC). The aim of the changes is to “help organizations focus on detailing the critical aspects of corrective actions take to resolve” deficiencies identified during survey. Previously, the queries included for appropriate ESC submittals revolved around the following: identifying who was ultimately responsible for the corrective action(s); what actions were completed to correct the finding(s); when the corrective actions were completed; and, how will you sustain compliance (that is, as they say, the sticky wicket, to be sure).

The future state will be (more or less) an expansion of those concerns, as well as including extra-special consideration for those findings identified as higher-risk Requirements For Improvement (RFIs) based on their “position” in the matrix thingy in your final report (findings that show up in the dark orange and red areas of the matrix). The changes are roughly characterized as delving “deeper into the specifics” of the original gang of four elements, so now we have the following: assigning accountability by indicating who is ultimately responsible for corrective action and sustained compliance (not a big change for that one); assigning accountability for leadership involvement (only for the high-risk findings—whew!) by indicating which member(s) of leadership support future compliance; corrective actions for the findings of noncompliance—this will combine the “what you did” with the “when you finished it”; for high-risk findings, you will also have to provide information on the corrective actions as a function of preventative analysis (this sounds like a big ol’ pain in the rumpus room, don’t it?); and , finally, an accounting of how you will ensure sustained compliance, which will have to include monitoring activities (including frequency), the type of data to be collected from the monitoring activities, and how, and to whom, the data will be reported.

In the past, there was always the lurking (almost ghoulish) presence of what’s going to happen if you have repeat findings from survey to survey, and this new process sounds like it might be paving the way for more obstreperous future survey outcomes. But I’d like to know a little bit more about what might be considered a repeat finding—does it have to be the same condition in the same place or is it enough to get cited for the same standard/performance element combo. If the former is the case, then I “get” them being a little more fussy about the process (in full recognition that every organization has some repeat-offender tendencies), but if it’s the latter, then (insert deity of choice) help us all, ‘cause it’s probably going to get more ugly before we see improvement. Or maybe it will just be repeats in the high-risk zone of the matrix—I think that’s also pretty reasonable, though I do think they (the Chicagoans) could do a little better in ensuring consistent approaches/interpretations, particularly when it comes to ligature risks.

All that said, I stand on my thought (and let me tell you, that’s not an easy task) that there are no perfect buildings, no perfect physical environments, etc., and that’s pretty much supported by what I’ve seen being cited during surveys—the rough edges are where the greatest number of findings can be generated. And since they only have to find one instance of any condition in order to generate an RFI, the numbers are not in favor of the folks who have to maintain the physical environment. If you’re interested in the official notice, the links below will take you the announcement article, as well as a delightful graphic presentation—oh boy!

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.

If brevity is the soul of wit…

Hope everyone enjoyed a festive and (most importantly) safe Independence Day—with any luck, today (July 5) does not mark the end of summer (as some do say) so much as it marks the beginning of the end of spring (up here in the Northeast, spring was loath to depart, but it does seem that pre-autumn weather has finally made a commitment to spending some time in the northern hemisphere).

I was looking recently at past blog posts for a reference to the CMS stance on law enforcement interactions with patients as a function of restraints and patient rights—always a fun topic—and I noted that the posts used to be a mite briefer than tends to be the case of late. (You can be the judge of whether my decline in brevity has left me soulless or witless.) I absolutely recognize that there’s been a lot of stuff to cover over the past 18 months with the firestorms of compliance that swept the healthcare environment, which has (no doubt) promoted some of the “volume” of bloggery. But it has caused me to wonder whether I am consuming the compliance elephant in sufficiently small bites to be of use to you folks out there in the field. As near as I can tell, the purpose of this whole thing (as much as I enjoy having a place to pontificate) is to provide information and thoughts on what is happening at the moment to you, my faithful audience of safety folk. And (as near as I can tell) it never hurts to ask one’s audience whether this works for you—please feel free to give me an e-dope slap if you think the “Space” has gone intergalactic in a less-than-useful way. At any rate, I am going to experiment with smaller bites of information in the coming weeks so you’ll have more time for other things—perhaps outdoors…

As far as news goes, things are relatively quiet as we observe the anniversary of CMS’s adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code. Hopefully you all have done your NFPA 99 risk assessments; polished off those door inspections and are speeding towards the completion of activities relating to initial compliance with the Emergency Preparedness Final Rule. Health Facilities Management This Week discussed some prepublication EC/LS standards relating to the testing of emergency lighting systems; inspection and testing of piped medical gas and vacuum systems; and updating pertinent NFPA code numbers. The pre-pub stuff is aimed at behavioral health care, laboratory, nursing care center, and office based surgery accreditation programs. You can find the details here: https://www.jointcommission.org/prepublication_standards_%E2%80%93_standards_revisions_to_environment_of_care_and_life_safety_chapters_related_to_life_safety_code_update_/

(I guess some of those links are about as brief as I am…)

Thanks, as always, for tuning in—I really appreciate having you all out there at the other end of the interweb…see you next week!

And then came the last days of May…

There’s been a ton of activity the past few weeks on both the Joint Commission and CMS sides of the equation (and if you are starting to feel like the ref in a heavyweight prize fight who keeps getting in the line of fire, yup, that’d be you!) with lots of information coming fast and furious. Some of it helpful (well, as helpful as things are likely to be), some perhaps less so than would be desirable (we can have all the expectations we want as to how we’d ask for things to be “shared,” but I’m not thinking that the “sharers” are contemplating the end users with much of this stuff). This week we’ll joust on TJC stuff (the June issue of Perspectives and an article published towards the end of May) and turn our attentions (just in time for the solstice—yippee!) to the CMS stuff (emergency preparedness and legionella, a match made in DC) next week.

Turning first to Perspectives, this month’s Clarifications & Expectations column deals with means of egress—still one of the more frequently cited standards, though it’s not hogging all the limelight like back in the early days of compliance. There are some anticipated changes to reflect the intricacies of the 2012 Life Safety Code® (LSC), including some renumbering of performance elements, but, for the most part, the basic tenets are still in place. People have to have a reliable means of exiting the (really, any) building in an emergency and part of that reliability revolves around managing the environment. So, we have the time-honored concept of cluttah (that’s the New English version), which has gained some flexibility over time to include crash carts, wheeled equipment, including chemotherapy carts and isolation carts that are being used for current patients, transport equipment, including wheelchairs and stretchers/gurneys (whichever is the term you know and love), and patient lift equipment. There is also an exception for fixed (securely attached to the wall or floor) furnishings in corridors as long as here is full smoke detector coverage or the furniture is in direct supervision of staff.

Also, we’ll be seeing some additional granularity when it comes to exiting in general: each floor of a building having two remote exits; every corridor providing access to at least two approved exits without passing through any intervening rooms or spaces other than corridors or lobbies, etc. Nothing particularly earth-shattering on that count. We’ll also be dealing with some additional guidance relative to suites, particularly separations of the suites from other areas and subdividing the areas within the suite—jolly good fun!

Finally, Clarifications & Expectations covers the pesky subject of illumination, particularly as a function of reliability and visibility, so head on over to the June Perspectives for some proper illuminative ruminations.

A couple of weeks back (May 24, to be exact), TJC unveiled some clarifications. I think they’re of moderate interest as a group, with one being particularly useful, one being somewhat curious and the other two falling somewhere in the middle:

ED occupancy classifications: This has been out in the world for a bit and, presumably, any angst relating to how one might classify one’s ED has dissipated, unless, of course, one had the temerity to classify the ED as a business occupancy—the residual pain from that will probably linger for a bit. Also (and I freely confess that I’m not at all sure about this one), is there a benefit of maintaining a suite designation when the ED is an ambulatory healthcare occupancy? As suites do not feature in the Ambulatory Occupancy chapters of the LSC, is it even possible to do so? Hmmmm…

Annual inspection of fire and smoke doors: No surprise here, with the possible exception of not requiring corridor doors and office doors (no combustibles) to be included. Not sure how that will fly with the CMSers…

Rated fire doors in lesser or non-rated barriers: I know this occurs with a fair degree of frequency, but the amount of attention this is receiving makes me wonder if there is a “gotcha” lurking somewhere in the language of the, particularly the general concept of “existing fire protection features obvious to the public.” I’m not really sure how far that can go and, given the general level of obliviousness (obliviosity?) of the general public, this one just makes me shake my head…

Fire drill times: I think this one has some value because the “spread” of fire drill times has resulted in a fair number of findings, though the clarification language doesn’t necessarily get you all the way there (I think I would have provided an example just to be on the safe side). What the clarification says is that a fire drill conducted no closer than one hour apart would be acceptable…there should not be a pattern of drills being conducted one hour apart. Where this crops up during survey is, for example, say all your third shift drills in 2016 were conducted in the range of 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. (Q1 – 0520; Q2 – 0559; Q3 – 0530; Q4 – 0540), that would be a finding, based on the need for the drills to be conducted under varying circumstances. Now, I think that anyone who’s worked in healthcare and been responsible for scheduling fire drills would tell you (at least I certainly would) that nobody remembers from quarter to quarter what time the last fire drill was conducted (and if they think about it at all, they’re quite sure that you “just” did a fire drill, like last week and don’t you understand how disruptive this is, etc.) If you can’t tell, third shift fire drills were never my favorite thing to do, though it beats being responsible for snow removal…

So that’s the Joint Commission side of the equation (if you can truly call it an equation). Next time: CMS!

Welcome to a new kind of tension…

In the “old” days, The Joint Commission’s FAQ page would indicate the date on which the individual FAQs had been updated, but now that feature seems to be missing from the site (it may be that deluge of changes to the FAQs (past, present, and, presumably, future) makes that a more challenging task than previously (I will freely admit that there wasn’t a ton of activity with the FAQs until recently). That said, there does appear to be some indication when there is new material. For example, when you click on the link (or clink on the lick), a little short of halfway down the page you will see that there’s something new relative to the storage of needles and syringes (they have it listed under the “Medical Equipment” function—more on that in a moment), so I think that’s OK.

But in last week’s (dated May 31, 2017) Joint Commission e-Alert, they indicate that there is a just posted FAQ item relating to ligature risks, but the FAQ does not appear to be highlighted in the same manner as the needle and syringe storage FAQ (at least as of June 1, when I am penning this item). Now I don’t disagree that the appropriate storage (recognizing that appropriate is in the eye of the beholder) of needles and syringes is an important topic of consideration, I’m thinking that anything that TJC issues relative to the appropriate management of ligature risks (and yes, it appears that I am far from done covering this particular topic) is of pretty close to utmost importance, particularly for those of you likely to experience a TJC survey in the next little while. I would encourage you to take a few moments to take a peek at the details here.

So, parsing these updates a bit: I don’t know that I’ve ever considered needles and syringes “medical equipment,” but I suppose they are really not medications, so I guess medical equipment is the appropriate descriptor—it will be interesting to see where issues related to the storage of needles and syringes are cited. As usual (at least on the TJC front) it all revolves around the (wait for it…) risk assessment. It’s kind of interesting in that this particular FAQ deals somewhat less specifically with the topic at hand (storage of needles and syringes) and more about the general concepts of the risk assessment process, including mention of the model risk assessment that can be found in the introductory section of the Leadership chapter (Leadership, to my mind, is a very good place to highlight the risk assessment process). So no particularly new or brilliant illumination here, but perhaps an indicator of future survey focus.

As to the ligature risks, I think it is reasonable to believe that there will be very few instances in which every single possible ligature risk will be removed from the care environment, which means that everyone is going to have to come up with some sort of mitigation strategy to manage those risks that have not been removed. With the FAQ, TJC has provided some guidance relative to what would minimally be expected of that mitigation strategy; while I dare not indicate verbatim (you will have to do your own clicking on this one—sorry!), you might imagine that there would need to be: communication of current risks; process for assessing patient risk; implementation of appropriate interventions; ongoing assessments of at-risk behavior; training of staff relative to levels of risk and appropriate interventions; inclusion of reduction strategies in the QAPI program; and inclusion of equipment-related risks in patient assessments, with subsequent implementation of interventions.

I don’t see any of this as particularly unusual/foreign/daunting, though (as usual) the staff education piece is probably the most complicated aspect of the equation as that is the most variable output. I am not convinced that we are doing poorly in this realm, but I guess this one really has to be a zero-harm philosophy. No arguments from me, but perhaps some important work to do.

Come on, I Lean: Do you Lean?

As you are no doubt aware by now, there’s been a wee bit of a shift in this forum away from all things Joint Commission, as the CMSers seem more inclined to assert themselves in the accreditation market place. I personally have had a lot of work this year in follow-up activities relating to CMS visits and one of the structural/organizational vulnerabilities/opportunities that seem to be cropping with some regularity are those relating to the integration of the physical environment program into organizational Quality Assessment/Performance Improvement (hereafter referred to as QAPI, pronounced “Kwoppee”—I think you’re going to find that you’ll be hearing that term a lot in the coming years/decades) activities. This very much goes back to a topic we discussed back in January (it’s funny, when I started looking for the link to this story, I could have sworn that we had covered this within the last month) relative to making sure that organizational leadership is abundantly familiar with any issues that are (more or less) “stuck” in your safety committee. There is no “sin” in admitting that there are or may be improvement opportunities for which traction in making those improvements is a little slippery—you have to have a means of escalating things to point where reasonable traction is possible. So, from a regulatory standpoint, this all falls under §482.21 Condition of Participation: Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement, which includes the rejoinder: “The hospital must develop, implement, and maintain an effective, ongoing, hospital-wide, data-driven quality assessment and performance improvement program. The hospital’s governing body must ensure that the program reflects the complexity of the hospital’s organization and services; involves all hospital departments and services (including those services furnished under contract or arrangement); and focuses on indicators related to improved health outcomes and the prevention and reduction of medical errors.”

Now, I can tell you that this is a very big deal, particularly when it comes to the reporting up of data, occurrence reporting, etc.—even from the likes of our little world of physical environment safety and related topics. And sometimes you have to be willing to throw some light on those process areas that are not performing as you would want them to; improvement doesn’t typically happen in a vacuum and that absence of vacuum tends to require a fair amount of conversation/collaboration (with some resultant caterwauling) in order to make things happen/get things done.

One QAPI topic you will probably be hearing about (if you have not already) is Lean methodology, which pretty much embraces the general concept of reducing “waste” while still delivering positive service outcomes by focusing on what the customer wants (you can find some useful highlights here; the books are worth a look—perhaps your local library can hook you up). One organization that appears to be endorsing the Lean methodology is that kooky bunch in Chicago and while the article focuses on behavioral health, I think there is enough practical information to be worth a look. And, since we know from past experience that TJC tends to adopt a more pervasive stance when it comes to these types of things, I think it would be very useful (at the very least for those of you using TJC for accreditation) to be conversant in Lean. It’s probably going to rock your boat at some point—life preservers mandatory!

Ticking away the moments

As we continue our (hopefully not futile) attempts to peel back the layers of the current Joint Commission survey process, I think it is of great importance to pay close attention to all the various blogs and missives emanating from the mothership in Chicago. While the information shared in this is not “enforceable” as a standard, it does seem that a lot of the general concepts manage to find their way into the practical administration of accreditation surveys. And since we know with a fair degree of certainty that the physical environment is still going to be somewhere in their default survey setting, I wanted to bring to your attention a recent (April 25) blog posting from Ann Scott Blouin, TJC’s Executive VP of Customer Relations, that focuses on the management of workplace violence.

The blog suggests focusing on a couple of key elements (none of which I would have any disagreement):

 

  • Personal risk factors
  • De-escalation education for all staff
  • Development of a workplace violence prevention plan
  • Enforcing zero tolerance for violence/bullying

I know from my own experience that de-escalation education for all staff is not nearly as widespread as I think it should be. Elements of de-escalation technique should be included in basic customer service education for pretty much anybody in a service job, regardless of the industry. I see way too many ticked-off people floating around—I’m entirely certain why folks seem to be so primed to vent/fume/fuss, etc. (I have some theories, only some of them based on the influence of certain elements of popular culture), but there has very clearly been a reduction in patience levels in far too many encounters.

At any rate, as another brick in the accreditation wall, I think you would be well-served to check out Ms. Blouin’s blog posting; ostensibly, it is aimed at organizational leadership, but hey: Are we not leaders?

That’s the FAQ, Jack!

It may be that I am covering one topic of conversation more than necessary (it’s getting to the point where this might eclipse the discussion of eyewash stations—yow!), but I cannot help but be very concerned about the amount of play that the management of the environment in which we place behavioral health patients is receiving in the annals of The Joint Commission. April 24 saw an electronic update announcing the “birth” of a new standards FAQ regarding ligature risks that appears to be aimed at dovetailing with Sentinel Event Alert #56 and includes mention of a “Suicide Risk Booster” (who comes up with these names?!?). As we have discussed before, FAQs, Sentinel Event Alerts, and stuff that finds its way into Perspectives all take on the weight of standards when applied in the field, so clearly organizations need to have all their ducks in a row. (And this is starting to look like a whole mess o’ ducks to be “rowed”, which brings new meaning to that Willie Nelson classic “On The Rowed Again,” but I digress—and who wouldn’t?) The question I keep coming back to is whether there’s been an uptick in actual events in which patients have come to harm as the result of poorly or inappropriately managed ligature risks. Or is this the result of surveyors in the field citing organizations for having ligature risks and not being able to produce a risk assessment of the existing conditions and the identification (and communication to staff—key point, that one) of mitigation strategies to manage the identified risks?

Part of the challenge with this particular issue (and this is true of a great many things in the physical environment) is that it is virtually impossible to provide an environment that is entirely, absolutely (please insert your favorite qualifier here) impossible to provide a completely risk-free environment—at least on this planet (perhaps there are safer planets in the Federation, but I couldn’t say for sure), so there’s always going to be something with which patients intent on hurting themselves might use to that end. Now I know that not every healthcare setting is set up to deal with behavioral health patients (and somehow, I do think that for any hospital that has not come face-to-face with the management of BH patients in areas not designed for that purpose, it is just a matter of time) and I also know that the BH patient volumes can be very mercurial. Even if you have one “safe” room, there are no guarantees that, at any given moment, that will be enough to handle however many patients you have in the queue—and you really can’t leave these folks out in the waiting room. Again, I’m not convinced that the issue here is that there is data to support that folks are not managing things appropriately, but rather more along the lines of not being able to consistently communicate the process for assessing and identifying risks, educating staff to be able to speak to the mitigation strategies being used to manage the identified risks, etc. I would (as I have been for a while now) encourage you to really take this topic and do a deep dive into the particulars of your organization. I firmly believe that this is not going to be one of those “one and done” instances of risk assessment and that you will be well-served by periodically revisiting the initial assessment (if it has been completed) to ensure that the conditions upon which you based your initial assessment have not changed (and that includes the volume and acuity of the patients). There is every indication that TJC is going to be hammering on this for some time to come (remembering that EC.02.06.01 was the most frequently cited standard in 2016; the ligature risk findings tend to show up there when cited) and, much as issues with the surgical environment and interim life safety measures, process gaps can get you in a heap of trouble. A little extra work on this (and those others) can only increase your chances for a successful survey (or at least a not spectacularly ugly survey).

As a closing note, after a dinner discussion with my wife (who happens to be a nurse), I’ve been contemplating how the role of the safety professional has changed over the last 10-15 years, including my surprise when I encounter evidence of “old school” approaches to safety. To my mind (such as it is), where safety compliance was once the result of (more or less) coercion, sustained compliance can truly only come as the result of collaboration with the folks who have to manage the environment on a day to day basis—pretty much everyone at point of care/point of service. It is not enough for a safety professional to periodically stroll through an area and point out deficiencies, there has to be a conversation and there has to be problem-solving. I think the old coercive style was based on something approaching a lack of faith in the folks out in the environment to be able (or willing) to “do the right thing.” But in this era of “just” culture and empowerment, etc., safety has to happen all the time and that, my friends, can only come with an atmosphere of collaboration. If people hide stuff or behave more appropriately when they hear you are coming, then it makes the surveillance process less useful. And if you don’t work with folks to figure out how to resolve the issues that you “keep finding,” the likelihood of it fixing itself on its own is pretty remote. I freely admit that problem-solving is my favorite part of my safety consulting work (meeting folks is also a fave); there is nothing better than talking through a problem and achieving some sort of consensus on how to proceed. It’s not always easy, but it is worth every moment you put into it!

Or the light that never warms

Continuing in our somewhat CMS-centric trajectory, I did want to touch upon one last topic (for the moment) as it portends some angst in the field. A couple of weeks ago (April 14, 2017, to be exact), the friendly folks at CMS issued notice of a proposed regulation change focusing on how Accrediting Organizations (AO) communicate survey results to the general public (you can find the details of the notice here).

At present, the various AOs do not make survey results and subsequent corrective action plans available to the general public, but apparently the intent is for that to change. So, using the Joint Commission data from 2016 as test data, it seems that a lot of folks are going to be highlighted in a manner that is not going to paint the prettiest picture. As we covered last week, hospitals and other healthcare organizations are not CMS’ customers, so their interest is pretty much solely in making sure that their customers are able to obtain information that may be helpful in making healthcare decisions. Returning to the Joint Commission data from last year, pretty much at least 50% of the hospitals surveyed will be “portrayed” as having issues in the environment (I’m standing by my prediction that those numbers are going to increase before they decrease—a prediction about which I will be more than happy to be incorrect). Now, the stated goal of this whole magillah is to improve the quality and safety of services provided to patients (can’t argue with that as a general concept), but I’m not entirely certain how memorializing a missed fire extinguisher check at an outpatient clinic or a missed weekly eyewash station check is going to help patients figure out where they want to obtain healthcare. So, I guess the question becomes one of how the folks we hire to assist with accreditation services (the folks for whom we are the customers) are going to share this information in the name of transparency? (Though I suppose if you were really diligent, it might be a little easier to discern trends in survey findings if you’re of a mind to dig through all the survey results.) It will be interesting to see how this plays out; I can’t imagine that they’d be able to publish survey results particularly quickly (I would think they would have to wait until the corrective action plan/evidence of standards compliance process worked itself through).

As with so many things related to the survey process, I understand what they are trying to do (begging the question: Is transparency always helpful?), but I’m not quite catching how this is going to help the process. I absolutely believe that the CMS and the AOs (could be a band name!) have a duty and an obligation to step in when patients are being placed at risk, as the result of care, environment, abuse, whatever. But does that extend to the “potential” of a process gap that “could” result in something bad happening—even in the presence of evidence that the risk is being appropriately managed? There always have been, and always will be, imperfections in any organization—and interpretations of what those imperfections may or may not represent. Does this process make us better or more fearful?

Do you know the way to TIA?

Last week we touched upon the official adoption of a handful of the Tentative Interim Agreements (TIA) issued through NFPA as a function of the ongoing evolution of the 2012 edition of the Life Safety Code® (LSC). At this point, it is really difficult to figure out what is going to be important relative to compliance survey activities and what is not, so I think a brief description of each makes (almost too much) sense. So, in no particular order (other than numerical…):

  • TIA #1 basically updates the table that provides the specifications for the Minimum Fire Protection Ratings for Opening Protectives in Fire Resistance-Rated Assemblies and Fire-Rated Glazing Markings (you can find the TIA here). I think it’s worth studying up on the specific elements—and perhaps worth sharing with the folks “managing” your life safety drawings if you’ve contracted with somebody external to the organization. I can tell you from personal experience that architects are sometimes not as familiar with the intricacies of the LSC—particularly the stuff that can cause heartburn during surveys. I think we can reasonably anticipate a little more attention being paid to the opening protectives and the like (what, you thought it couldn’t get any worse?), and I suspect that this is going to be valuable information to have in your pocket.
  • TIA #2 mostly covers cooking facilities that are open to the corridor; there are a lot of interesting elements and I think a lot of you will have every reason to be thankful that this doesn’t apply to staff break rooms and lounges, though it could potentially be a source of angst around the holidays, depending on where folks are preparing food. If you get a literalist surveyor, those pesky slow cookers, portable grills, and other buffet equipment could become a point of contention unless they are in a space off the corridor. You can find the whole chapter and verse here.
  • Finally, TIA #4 (there are other TIAs for the 2012 LSC, but these are the three specific to healthcare) appears to provide a little bit of flexibility relative to special locking arrangements based on protective safety measures for patients as a function of protection throughout the building by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 19.3.5.7. Originally, this section of the LSC referenced 19.3.5.1 which doesn’t provide much in the way of consideration for those instances (in Type I and Type II construction) where an AHJ has prohibited sprinklers. In that case, approved alternative protection measures shall be permitted to be substituted for sprinkler protection in specified areas without causing a building to be classified as non-sprinklered. You can find the details of the TIA here.

 

I suppose before I move on, I should note that you’re probably going to want to dig out your copy of the 2012 LSC when looking these over.

As a quick wrap-up, last week The Joint Commission issued Sentinel Event Alert #57 regarding the essential role of leadership in developing a safety culture (some initial info can be found here). While I would be the last person to accuse anyone of belaboring the obvious (being a virtual Rhodes Scholar in that type of endeavor myself), I cannot help but think that this might not be quite as earth-shattering an issuance as might be supposed by the folks in Chicago. At the very least, I guess this represents at least one more opportunity to drag organizational leadership into the safety fray. So, my question for you today (and I suspect I will have more to say on this subject over the next little while—especially as we start to see this issue monitored/validated during survey) is what steps has your organization taken to reduce intimidation and punitive aspects of the culture. I’m reasonably certain that everyone is working on this to one degree or another, but I am curious as to what type of stuff is being experienced in the field. Again, more to come, I’m sure…