RSSAll Entries Tagged With: "CMS"

An invitation to the regulatory dance—and the band keeps playing faster…

About a year ago, we chatted a bit about the likely changes to the regulatory landscape under a new administration, most of which (at least those related to the changing of the guard) never really materialized to any great extent. But one thing held true—and continues as we embark upon the good ship 2018—the focus on management of the physical environment is very much at the forefront of preparatory activities.

We also chatted a bit about The Joint Commission’s previous exhortations to healthcare leaders to focus more attention on the management of the physical environment (I was going to provide a link to TJC’s leadership blog regarding our little world, but it appears that the page is not so easily found, though I’m sure it has nothing to do with revisionist history…). But it does appear that there’s no reason to think that the number (and probably types) of survey findings in the environment are going to be anything but steady, though hopefully not a steady increase. Remember, we still have two years in the survey cycle before everyone gets to have undergone their first survey with the loss of the rate-based performance elements.

Which brings us squarely to 2018 and our continuing storm of regulatory challenges; I had made a list of stuff that I believed would play some role of significance in 2017 and (strangely enough) appear to be poised to do the same in the coming year (or two…or three?!?):

 

  1. Physical environment standards remain among the most frequently cited during TJC surveys (Nine of the 10 most frequently cited standards for the period January through June 2017). Please check out the September 2017 issue of Joint Commission Perspectives for the details! Just so you know (and I do believe that I’ve mentioned this in the past), I “count” IC.02.02.01 as a physical environment standard. Yes, I know it’s under the Infection Control chapter, but disinfection, the management of equipment and supplies? That all happens in the environment!
  2. CMS, in its report card to Congress, identified the physical environment as the largest “gap” of oversight during all accreditation organization surveys
  3. Also in its report card to Congress, CMS singled out TJC as lagging behind its competition when it comes to improving identification of deficiencies relative to the Conditions of Participation. I firmly believe that the report card to Congress was the proverbial “spark” that fanned the flames of regulatory focus in the environment. I don’t know when we can expect an updated edition of the report card (I suspect that it may be a while), but knowing that CMS is “concerned” can only mean continued focus…
  4. CMS adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code® (effective survey date of November 1, 2016) definitely did create some level of confusion and uncertainty that always accompanies “change.” And 2017 demonstrated very clearly that it’s not just “us” that have to learn the practical application of the new stuff—the surveyors have to catch up as well! I am definitely starting to see the impact of the adoption of the 2012 Health Facilities Code (NFPA 99)—if you don’t have a copy in your library, it might just be time.
  5. TJC is in the process of revising its Environment of Care and Life Safety chapters to more closely reflect CMS requirements. January 2018 continues the rollout of the standards/performance elements updates—and they’re still not done. As we’ve discussed over the last few weeks, there’s still a lot of shifting requirements (some we always knew were in place, others merely rumored).
  6. Recent TJC survey reports indicate an increasing focus (and resulting vulnerabilities) on outpatient locations, particularly those engaging in high-level disinfection and/or surgical procedures. The physical environment in all areas in which patients receive care, treatment, and services are generating up to 60% of the total physical environment findings in recent surveys. That was just as true in 2017 as in 2016—each care location in the organization has to be prepared for multi-day scrutiny.
  7. CMS published its final rule on Emergency Preparedness (including Interpretive Guidelines, effective November 2016, with full implementation of requirements due November 2017). While organizations in compliance with current TJC Emergency Management standards will be in substantial compliance with the new rule, there will be some potential vulnerabilities relative to some of the specific components of the rule. The key sticking points at the moment appear to relate to the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) and the processes for delegating authority and leadership succession planning during extended events.
  8. Introduction of TJC’s SAFER matrix, which did indeed result in every deficiency identified during the survey process being included in the final survey report. Formerly, there was a section called Opportunities For Improvement for the single findings that didn’t “roll up” into a Requirement For Improvement. With the SAFER matrix, everything they find goes into the report. And there did seem to be a preponderance of findings “clustered” (make of that descriptor what you will) in the high risk sections of the matrix.
  9. As a final “nail” in the survey process coffin, effective January 2017, TJC will no longer provide for the clarification of findings once the survey has been completed. While this didn’t result in quite the devastation in the process as it might have first appeared (mostly because I think it forced the issue of pushing back during the survey), it also appears that clarification only during survey was not the hard line in the sand it appeared to be when this first “dropped.” That said, there very definitely seems to be a reluctance on the part of the folks at the Standards Interpretation Group (SIG) to “reverse the call on the field” once the survey team has left the building; just as there is a reluctance to vacate physical environment findings once the LS surveyor has hit the bricks. If you feel that a finding is not valid, there is no time like the present when it comes to the pushback.
  10. One unexpected “change” during 2017: The focus on ligature risks in the various environments in which behavioral health patients receive care, treatment, and/or services. We’ve discussed the particulars fairly extensively in this space and while I didn’t see it “coming,” it has certainly leaped to the top of the concern pile. The recent guidance from the regulators has (perhaps) helped to some degree, but this one feels a lot like the focus on the procedural environment over the past couple of years. I don’t think they’re done with this by any stretch…

 

In my mind, still working from the perspective of CMS calling out the physical environment as an area of concern, the stuff noted above indicates the likely result that the next 12-24 survey months will show a continued focus on the physical environment by the entire survey team (not just the Life Safety surveyor) and a likely continued plateau or increase in findings relating to the physical environment. I still believe that eventually the regulatory focus will drift back more toward patient care-related issues, but right now the focus on the physical environment is generating a ton of findings. And since that appears to be their primary function (generating findings), there’s always lots to find in the environment.

As I like to tell folks (probably ad nauseum, truth be told), there are no perfect buildings/environments, so there’s always stuff to be found—mostly fairly small items on the risk scale, but they are all citable. The fact of the matter is that there will be findings in the physical environment during your next survey, so the focus will shift to include ensuring that the corrective action plans for those findings are not only appropriate, but also can demonstrate consideration of sustained compliance over time. Preparing for the survey of the physical environment must reflect an ongoing process for managing “imperfections”—not just every 36 (or so) months, but every day.

Try to run, try to hide: Some random thoughts to open the 2018 Physical Environment campaign

I suspect that I may return to the coming changes to the Life Safety standards and EPs dealing with outpatient occupancy, but I wanted to toss a couple of other thoughts your way to start things off with a lesser potential for headaches derived from over-stimulation of the regulatory madness response.

Some of the funkiest findings that arise during survey are those relating to the euphemistic “non-intact surfaces.” The overarching concerns relate to how effectively non-intact surfaces can be cleaned/disinfected, with the prevailing logic being “not particularly well.” One of the surfaces that will encounter scrutiny during survey is the omnipresent patient mattress and I suspect a recent study by ECRI is only going to increase attentions in this regard because, to be honest, what they found is kind of disturbing. As we’ve discussed in the past, ECRI publishes an annual list of technology challenges, and #3 on the hit list this year involves the risks associated with “mattress ingress,” which roughly translates into blood and body fluids seeping into mattresses with non-intact surfaces. I think part of the dynamic at work is that mattresses are somewhat (and in some instances, very much) more expensive than in the “old days,” which decreases the ability for organizations to have a ready supply of backup mattresses for replacement activities. Of course, you have to have a robust process for identifying mattresses to be replaced and that process generally hinges on the active participation of the folks in Environmental Services. As one might imagine, this can become a costly undertaking if you’ve got a lot of cracked or otherwise damaged mattresses, but if you need some additional information with which to encourage the importance of the process, Health Facilities Management magazine has something that I think you’ll find useful.

Another one of those funky findings that I see bubbling up from time to time are those related to the use (including availability) of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). From a practical standpoint, I know it can be a wicked pain in the butt to get folks to do what they’re supposed to when it comes to PPE use (especially when they are engaged in the inappropriate mixing of chemicals—yow!). While it is too early to tell whether this is going to be helpful or another bludgeon with which regulatory surveyors can bring to bear on safety professionals, the tag team of CDC and NIOSH have come up with a “National Framework for Personal Protective Equipment Conformity Assessment – Infrastructure” to help achieve some level of standardization relative to PPE use. It does (of course!) include the use of processes that very much resemble those of a risk assessment, including identification of risks and hazards and identification of PPE types needed to address those risks and hazards. Part of me is fearful that this is going to be just one more opportunity for field surveyors to muddy the waters even more than they are now (is that even possible? I hope not…). At any rate, this is probably something with which you should be at least passingly familiar; you can find the details, as well as the downloadable document, here.

As you’ve probably noticed over the last little while, these pages tend to focus more on TJC and CMS than most of the accreditation organizations, but I was happy (Pleased? Intrigued? Something else?) to see that the Health Facilities Accreditation Program (HFAP) had published a summary of its most frequently cited standards/conditions during 2017 in its annual Quality Report. I’ll let you look over the document in its entirety, but some of the EC/EM/LS findings were kind of interesting. In no particular orders, some topics and thoughts:

  • Business continuity: Effective recovery from an emergency/disaster is the result of thoughtful planning. The road to recovery should be clearly charted.
  • Emergency supplies: Apparently there is a move towards maintaining emergency supplies as a separate “entity”; also an inventory is important.
  • Security of supplies: Make sure there are provisions for securing supplies; I suspect this is most applicable during an emergency, particularly an extended-time event.
  • Personal Protective Equipment: Don’t forget PPE in your emergency planning activities.
  • Decontamination/Triage/Utilities/Volunteers: Make sure you have a handle on these in your emergency plan.
  • Environment of Care: Eyewash stations, ligature risks, dirty and/or non-intact surfaces, clustering of fire drills, past due inspections of medical equipment, air pressure relationships, open junction boxes, obstructed access to electrical panels, etc., risk assessment stuff, making sure that all care environments are demonstrably included in the program.
  • Life Safety: Improper installation of smoke detectors, exit/no exit signage concerns, fire alarm testing issues (not complete, no device inventory, etc.), egress locking arrangements, unsealed penetrations, rated door/frame issues.

Again, the link above will take you to the report, but there’s really nothing that couldn’t be found anywhere if there are “lapses of concentration” in the process. Right now, healthcare organization physical environments are being surveyed with the “bar” residing at the perfect level. I have encountered any number of very effectively managed facilities in the 16 years I’ve been doing this, but I can count the number of perfect buildings on the finger of no fingers. Perhaps you have one, but if you’ve got people scurrying around the place, I suspect perfection is the goal, but always a distance away…

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.

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…

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!

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!

Plan be nimble, plan be quick

As we have discussed (pretty much ad nauseum) in this hallowed hall of electrons, there is likely to be a renewed (and I don’t mean renewed in a healthful way, this would be more like a subscription to a magazine that someone sent you as a prank) interest/scrutiny in how you and your organization are complying with all these lovely (and pesky, can’t forget pesky) new emergency management considerations. But there is one word of caution that I wanted to inject into the conversation, and while it probably doesn’t “need” to be said, I try not to leave any card unplayed when it comes to compliance activities.

Over the years (officially 16 of consulting—time flies!) I have found that sometimes (OK, maybe more frequently than sometimes), the prettiest plans, policies, procedures, etc. end up falling to the ground in demonic spasms because they did not accurately reflect the practice of the organization. The general mantra for this is “do the right thing, do what you say, say what you do,” but sometimes it’s tough to figure out exactly what constitutes “the right thing” (as opposed to “The Right Stuff,” natch). When it comes to emergency preparedness, response, recovery, etc. probably the single most important aspect of the plan (at least I think it’s an aspect—if you can think of a better descriptor, please sing out!) is that it is flexible enough to be able to react to minute-by-minute changes that are (frequently) the hallmark of catastrophic events. I think anyone who has worked in healthcare for any length of time has seen what happens to a rigid structure, be it policy, plan, expectations, buildings, flora and fauna—whatever, when things get to swirling around in intense fashion—things start to pull apart (figuratively and/or literally) and sustaining your response becomes that much more difficult.

So, as we “embrace” the challenges of the changes, I would encourage you to think about how you’ll maintain (and test during exercises) that flexibility of response that will give you enough wiggle room to weather the storms (of outrageous and other fabulous fortune). Exercise scenarios can push (or be pushed) in any number of directions (strangely, it is very much like real life)—make sure you take full advantage of those folks in the Command Center—if they’re not sweating—turn up the heat!