RSSAll Entries Tagged With: "CMS"

Let’s begin again, begin the begin: CMS ligature risks codified!

While I have little doubt that we will yet again revisit the management of ligature risks and behavioral health patients, it would seem that chapter and verse are getting towards stone tablet form—but you have a chance to influence the future state. I suspect we will also be looking back to determine how much influence the field has on the final, final or whether the party line from Chicago holds sway (kind of looks like that at the moment, but there is still time):

  • Back on April 19 (and I do apologize for not picking up on this sooner—I need to get a better strategy for monitoring all these goings-on), CMS issued a draft clarification of the interpretive guidelines relating to ligature risk (you can find the skinny here). All things being equal, I suppose the “newest” thing is the formal introduction of the Ligature Risk Extension Request (LRER—just what we needed, another acronym), which outlines a process for correction of ligature risks that will take longer than the official 60-day turnaround time for the correction of deficiencies. One thing is very clear (well, maybe a couple of things): State agencies and/or accreditation organizations are not allowed to grant LRERs. They can, and in most instances, will act as intermediary between the organization seeking the extension and CMS, and will (basically) advocate for approval based on their analysis of the issues. This is not a Life Safety Code® waiver as ligature risks are not a compliance deficiency relative to life safety requirements. From the process outlined, it does appear that this is to be a reasonable process, (potentially) making allowances for obtaining approval of the governing body, engaging in competitive bidding, applying for funding, obtaining permits for physical changes, and lack of or delays in obtaining products and supplies needed for corrective actions. Needless to say, with the invocation of the LRER, there will be
    • Mitigation strategies to implement
    • Progress reporting to be done
    • A re-survey to verify that the deficiencies have indeed been corrected by the state agency or accreditation organization
  • As has been the case pretty much from the get-go, there are two assessment processes that need to dovetail (or perhaps they are concentric circles): An assessment of the environment and the assessment of patients to determine the level of risk for suicidal behaviors. I do believe that eventually we will be left with the latter upon which to focus, but I suppose there will need to be an ongoing due diligence relative to monitoring the environment. Ultimately, it seems to come down to striking the balance between seeing every aspect of the environment as a big hairy monster as opposed to an element in the environment that can be managed by appropriate means. At the very least, I am hoping that the survey focus returns to general patient care and infection control, with perhaps a side of medication management—I think that’s where the meaningful improvements are hiding (in plain sight).

As a final note, we do have until June 6, 2019 to weigh in on the proposed changes, so I would suggest you gather together a little working group, and if the spirit moves you, weigh right in. The data supports this being a whole bunch of ado about very little (approaching a whole bunch of doodoo), so the sooner we can refocus on the “real” challenges, the better.

 

Wagering on a sewer thing: How are you managing wastes during an emergency?

Burn, bury, or dump it—apparently there is madness in the method—and your plan needs to reflect the methodologies.

I recognize that, particularly with newly introduced requirements, guidelines, etc., the rarified elements that we collectively (if not quite lovingly) refer to as “surveyor interpretation” are at their most diverse, maddening, arbitrary, capricious, and on and on and on. That said, there is one element relating to the recent CMS update relative to emergency preparedness that I touched upon in the blog a couple of weeks ago , but did not devote a lot of discussion time to it. And that element relates to waste management during an emergency response.

During CMS surveys as recent as March 2019, there has been much discussion about the particulars of how folks are poised to manage the various and sundry waste products generated by/through normal hospital operations, particularly during a prolonged emergency response condition. And while I can’t say I saw this coming (at least not in the first wave of scrutiny), it does appear that the CMSers (or at least some of ’em) are looking for fairly detailed planning in this regard: collection, holding/storage, short-term disposal, long-term disposal, pharmaceutical wastes, chemical wastes, etc. , inclusive of second and third-level backup plans. I suppose, like with just about anything and everything you could name, there is always the potential for external disruption that constricts the ability to remove waste materials from our campuses. And, while I think we tend to focus our preparatory activities on sustaining normal operations, it would seem that there might be some vulnerability relating getting rid of the stuffs that are the result of those normal operations.

At this point, I’m not entirely certain if the focus is more to the consultative than the compliance-related approach—the topic was discussed during survey, but no report has been issued as of this writing (if I hear more, I will certainly let you know), so it’s anybody’s guess. But I do know that these things tend to spread pretty quickly in the field, so it certainly wouldn’t hurt to kick the tires of your waste processes during your next emergency response exercise.

Immediate Jeopardy: How much do you want to wager?

With best wishes to Alex Trebek!

Over the last couple of weeks, the folks at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (we know them by the cleverly acronymic CMS) have been busy generating lots of guidance for the folks in the field, healthcare organizations and surveyors alike. One of these missives covers the revision of Appendix Q of the State Operations Manual to provide guidance to surveyors and, (by extension) folks charged with compliance at the organizational level, for identifying Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) conditions during surveys. For those of you that have not had the dubious fortune of encountering an IJ in your organization (and I dearly hope that trend continues), it is difficult to describe the impact this can have on an organization. Short of shutting the place down, I cannot think of a more—oh I don’t know, words really seem to fall short in describing the sheer awfulness of an IJ finding.

But as they say, forewarned is forearmed (more on that delightful turn of phrase here). So let’s chat a bit about how one gets to an IJ.

The pieces that comprise an Immediate Jeopardy finding go a little something like this (the entire notification can be found here):

“To cite immediate jeopardy, surveyors determine that (1) noncompliance (2) caused or created a likelihood that serious injury, harm, impairment or death to one or more recipients would occur or recur; and (3) immediate action is necessary to prevent the occurrence or recurrence of serious injury, harm, impairment or death to one or more recipients.”

I think you could probably imagine any number of scenarios that might fit that particular bill; by the way, one of the revisions to this guidance was a change to (2). In the revision, the term “likelihood” replaced “potential.” While I do think “likelihood” is a somewhat higher bar to meet than “potential,” I still see a lot of room for surveyor interpretation. Hopefully, the administration of this judgment call will be more judicious than not. Time will tell…

Fortunately, we do have the opportunity to get a “leg up” on the process by visiting the CMS surveyor training page and working through the education materials provided there (the education is open to providers, so don’t be scared off by the link). I have not yet partaken of the education (it’s on my to-do list) and I will surely provide an update in this space once I have done so.

Keeping an eye on things: Managing behavioral health patients

What, again?!?

Recently, our friends in Chicago added a new FAQ to the canon, this time reflecting on the use of video monitoring/electronic sitters for patients at high risk for suicide (you can find the details here). For those of you paying attention over the years—and I think that’s everybody within the sound of my “voice”—the situational requirements are based on a clear invocation of the “it depends” metric. I think it is pretty clear (and pretty much the standard “problem” relative to the management of behavioral health patients at serious risk for suicide) that providing sufficient flexibility of staffing to be able to provide 1:1 observation of these patients is where folks are looking for that flexibility in technological monitoring and the FAQ pretty much puts a big stop on that front. I think the quote that comes into focus for this aspect is, “The use of video monitoring or ‘electronic-sitters’ would not be acceptable in this situation because staff would not be immediately available to intervene.” So, as a general practice, a 1:1 observation means that somebody (a human somebody) is “immediately available to intervene,” which means all the time, at any time.

At this point in the discussion, I think the important piece of this is (and is likely to remain so) the clinical assessment of the patient, inclusive of the identification of the risk level for suicide. I don’t think that the “reality” of having to deal with way more of these patients than we would prefer is going to change any time soon, and with it, the complete unpredictability of that patient volume as a function of staffing (full moons notwithstanding).

The FAQ goes on to discuss the use of video monitoring in those instances in which it is not safe for staff to be physically located in the patient’s room, but the use of video monitoring has to result in the same level of observation, immediacy of response, etc. It also indicates that video monitoring for patients that are not at high risk for suicide is at the discretion of the organization, indicating that there are no “leading practices” in this regard. I guess that means that you’re really going to have to make your own way if you chose the video monitoring route, which should include (as also noted in the FAQ) provisions for reassessment of the patient(s). Interesting times, my friends, interesting times…

As a final (and almost completely unrelated) note, I wanted to bring to your attention some discussion over at the Motor & Generator Institute (MGI) relating to recent CMS guidance regarding expected temperatures in the care environment during normal power outages and how, if you have a long-term care facility in your mix, a risk assessment might not be enough. You can find the details here and the folks at MGI are encouraging feedback, so I think it might be worth checking out and weighing in.

 

Making a checklist, making it right: Reducing compliance errors

As you may have noticed, I am something of a fan of public radio (most of my listening in vehicles involves NPR and its analogues) and every once in a while, I hear something that I think would be useful to you folks out in the field. One show that I don’t hear too often (one of the things about terrestrial radio is that it’s all in the timing) is called “Hidden Brain”, the common subject thread being “A conversation about life’s unseen patterns.” I find the programs to be very thought-provoking, well-produced, and generally worth checking out.

This past weekend, they repeated a show from 2017 that described Dr. Atul Gawande’s (among others) use of checklists during surgical (and other) procedures to try to anticipate what unexpected things could occur based on the procedure, where they were operating, etc. One of the remarks that came up during the course of the program dealt with how extensive a checklist one might need, with the overarching thought being that a more limited checklist tends to work better because it’s more brain-friendly (I’m paraphrasing quite a bit here) than a checklist that goes on for pages and pages. I get a lot of questions/requests for tools/checklists for doing surveillance rounds, etc. (to be honest, it has been a very long time since I’ve actually “used” a physical checklist; my methodology, such as it is, tends to involve looking at the environment to see what “falls out”). Folks always seem a little disappointed when the checklist I cough up (so to speak) has about 15-20 items, particularly when I encourage them not to use all the items. When it comes to actual checklists that you’re going to use (particularly if you’re going to try and enlist the assistance of department-level folks) for survey prep, I think starting with five to seven items and working to hardwire those items into how folks “see” the environment is the best way to start. I recall a couple of years ago when first visiting a hospital—every day each manager was charged with completing a five-page environmental surveillance checklist—and I still was able to find imperfections in the environment (both items that they were actually checking on and a couple of other items that weren’t featured in the five-pager and later turned out to be somewhat important). At the point of my arrival, this particular organization was (more or less) under siege from various regulatory forces and were really in a state of shock (sometimes a little regulatory trouble is like exsanguination in shark-infested waters) and had latched on to a process that, at the end of the day, was not particularly effective and became almost like a sleepwalk to ensure compliance (hey, that could be a new show about zombie safety officers, “The Walking Safe”).

At any rate, I think one of the defining tasks/charges of the safety professional is to facilitate the participation of point-of-care/point-of-service folks by helping them learn how to “see” the stuff that jumps out at us when we do our rounds. When you look at the stuff that tends to get cited during surveys (at least when it comes to the physical environment), there’s not a lot of crazy, dangerous stuff; it is the myriad imperfections that come from introducing people into the environment. Buildings are never more perfect than the moment before occupancy—after that, the struggle is real! And checklists might be a good way to get folks on the same page: just remember to start small and focus on the things that are most likely to cause trouble and are most “invisible” to folks.

Waste not, want not: The rest of the CMS Emergency Preparedness picture

Moving on to the rest of the guidance document (it still lives here), I did want to note one last item relative to emergency power: There is an expectation that “as part of the cooperation and collaboration with emergency preparedness officials,” organizations should confer with health department and emergency management officials, as well as healthcare coalitions to “determine the types and duration of energy sources that could be available to assist them in providing care to their patient population. As part of the risk assessment planning, facilities should determine the feasibility of relying on these sources and plan accordingly.

“NOTE: Hospitals, CAHs and LTC facilities are required to base their emergency power and stand-by systems on their emergency plans and risk assessments and including the policies and procedures for hospitals. The determination of the appropriate alternate energy source should be made through the development of the facility’s risk assessment and emergency plan. If these facilities determine that a permanent generator is not required to meet the emergency power and stand-by systems requirements for this emergency preparedness regulation, then §§482.15(e)(1) and (2), §483.73(e)(1) and (2),

  • 485.625(e)(1) and (2), would not apply. However, these facility types must continue to meet the existing emergency power provisions and requirements for their provider/supplier types under physical environment CoPs or any existing LSC guidance.”

“If a Hospital, CAH or LTC facility determines that the use of a portable and mobile generator would be the best way to accommodate for additional electrical loads necessary to meet subsistence needs required by emergency preparedness plans, policies and procedures, then NFPA requirements on emergency and standby power systems such as generator installation, location, inspection and testing, and fuel would not be applicable to the portable generator and associated distribution system, except for NFPA 70 – National Electrical Code.”

I think it is very clear that hospitals, et al., are going to be able to plot their own course relative to providing power during emergency conditions, but what’s not so clear is to what depth surveyors will be looking for you to “take” the risk assessment. I suspect that most folks would run with their permanently installed emergency generators and call it a day, but as healthcare organizations become healthcare networks become healthcare systems, the degree of complexity is going to drive some level of flexibility that can’t always be attained using fixed generator equipment. If anyone has any stories to share on this front (either recent or future), I hope you’re inclined to share (and you can reach out directly to me and I will anonymize your story, if you like).

Wrapping up the rest of the changes/additions, you’ll be pleased to hear that you are not required to provide on-site treatment of sewage or waste, but you need to have provisions for maintaining “necessary services.” Of course, the memo indicates that they are not specifying what “necessary services for sewage or waste management” might be, so a little self-definition would appear to be in order.

If your organization has a home health agency, then you need to make sure that the communication plan includes all the following: (1) Names and contact information for the following: (i) Staff. (ii) Entities providing services under arrangement. (iii) Patients’ physicians. (iv) Volunteers. I think that one’s pretty self-evident but may be worth a little verification.

Next up are some thoughts about providing education to folks working as contracted staff who provide services in multiple surrounding areas; the guidance indicates that it may not be feasible for these folks to receive formal training for each of the facilities emergency response plan/program. The expectation is that each individual (and this applies equally to everyone else in the mix) knows the emergency response program and their role during emergencies, but each organization can determine how that happens, including what constitutes appropriate evidence that the training was completed. Additionally, if a surveyor asks one of these folks what their role is during a disaster, then the expectation would be for them to be able to describe the plan and their role(s). No big surprise there (I suspect that validating the competency of point-of-care/service staff is going to be playing a greater role in the survey process—how many folks would they have to ask before somebody “fumbles”?)

The last item relates to the use of real emergency response events in place of the required exercises; I would have thought that this was (relatively) self-evident, but I guess there were enough questions from the field for them to specify that you can indeed use a real event in place of an exercise. Just make sure you have the documentation in order (I know I didn’t “have” to say that, but I figure if it’s important enough for CMS to say it, then who am I…). The timing would be one year from the actual response activation, so make sure you keep a close eye on those calendars (unless, of course, you have numerous real-life opportunities…).

I do think the overarching sense of this is positive, at least in terms of limiting the prescriptive elements. As is sometimes the case, the “responsibility” falls to each organization to be prepared to educate the surveyors as to what preparedness looks like—it has many similar components, but how things integrate can have great variability. Don’t be afraid to do a little hand-holding if the surveyors are looking for something to be done a certain or to look a certain way. You know what works best in your “house,” better than any surveyor!

Walking in the shadow of the big man: CMS isn’t done with emergency preparedness

Imagine that!

The turn of February brought with it the latest epistle from our friends at CMS as they continue to noodle on the preparedness of the nation’s hospitals. I don’t know that this represents a ton of hardship for folks and I do know, for at least some folks, the latest directive is fairly straightforward as a function of their emergency preparedness programs, activities, etc. As we’ve discussed once or twice over the years (decades?!?), emergency preparedness is a journey, it is not a destination. And while we do have the opportunity to plot our own course on this, it seems that the regulatory oversight piece will never be very far away.

So, the first piece of this (you can find the whole missive here) is the pronouncement that planning for using an all-hazards approach to emergency management (and who isn’t?!?) should also include consideration of emerging infectious disease (EID: Influenza, Ebola, Zika, etc.) threats. The guidance goes on to indicate that planning for EIDs “may require modifications to facility protocols to protect the health and safety of patients, such as isolation and personal protective measures.” I think my immediate inclination would be to include EID threats as a separate line item for your HVA (my fear being if you integrate things too well into your existing, then you’ll be that much harder-pressed to “pull out” the EID portion of your organizational analysis). And/or if you combine all the IC stuff into one, then you might make changes to your plan to address the higher-risk stuff and create some operational challenges for your “normal” stuff. It’s early in the game on this one, so we’ll see how the process matures.

Next up we have some discussion relative to the use of portable/mobile generators as part of our emergency preparedness activities. It would seem that a lot of folks reached out to CMS to see if they were going to have to replace portable/mobile generators with the typical generator equipment found in hospitals, and (hooray!) the answer to that question is no, you don’t have to: unless your risk assessment indicates that you should. Apparently, there were other questions relating to the care and feeding of portable/mobile generators and the ruling on the field is that you would have to maintain them in accordance with NFPA 70 (and, presumably, the manufacturers’ IFUs), which includes:

  • Have all wiring to each unit installed in accordance with the requirements of any of the wiring methods in Chapter 3.
  • Be designed and located to minimize the hazards that might cause complete failure due to flooding, fires, icing, and vandalism.
  • Be located so that adequate ventilation is provided.
  • Be located or protected so that sparks cannot reach adjacent combustible material.
  • Be operated, tested and maintained in accordance with manufacturer, local and/or state requirements.

It also mentions that extension cords and other temporary wiring devices may not be used with the portable generators, so make sure that you have those ducks in a row.

There are a few more things to cover, but I think those can wait until next week. See you then!

A hospital in trouble is a temporary thing: Post-survey blues!

As you might well imagine, based on the number of findings floating around, as well as CMS’ continuing scrutiny of the various and sundry accreditation organizations (the latest report card is out and it doesn’t look too lovely—more on that next week after I’ve had a chance to digest some of the details), there are a fair number of organizations facing survey jeopardy for perhaps the first time in their history. And a lot of that jeopardy is based on findings in the physical environment (ligature risks and procedural environment management being the primary drivers), which has resulted in no little chagrin on the part of safety and facility professionals (I don’t think anyone really thinks that it would or could in their facility, but that’s not the type of philosophy that will keep the survey wolves at bay). The fact of the matter is (I know I’ve said this before, though it’s possible that I’ve not yet bent your collective ears on this point) that there are no perfect buildings, particularly in the healthcare world. They are never more perfect than the moment before you put people in them—after that, it is a constant battle.

Unlike any other time in recorded history, the current survey epoch is all about generating findings and the imperfect nature of humans and their interactions with their environment create a “perfect storm” of opportunities to grow those numbers. And when you think about it, there is always something to find, so those days of minimal to no findings were really more aberrant than it probably seemed at the time.

The other piece of this is the dreaded adverse accreditation decision: preliminary denial of this, termination of that and on, and on. The important thing to remember when those things happen is that you will be given (well, hopefully it’s you and not your organization sailing off into the sunset without you) an opportunity to identify corrective action plans for all those pesky little findings. I can’t tell you it doesn’t suck to be in the thick of an adverse accreditation decision because it truly, truly does suck, but just keep in mind that it is a process with an end point. There may be some choppy seas in the harbor, but you have the craft (both figuratively and literally) to successfully make landfall, so don’t give up the ship.

Never say never: The ligature risk conversation continues…

I truly was thinking that perhaps I could go a couple more weeks without coming back to the ligature risk topic, but continued percolation in this area dictates otherwise. So here’s one news item and one (all too consultative) recommendation.

If you took a gander at the September issue of Briefings on Accreditation and Quality, you will have noted that the Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (HFAP) isn’t revising their existing standards in the wake of the recent CMS memorandum indicating that The Joint Commission’s (TJC) focus work on the subject of managing physical environment risks and behavioral health patients is an acceptable starting point (and I am very serious about that descriptor—I don’t see this ending real soon, but more on that in a moment). I’m not sure if HFAP makes as much use of Frequently Asked Questions forums as TJC does (and with that use, the “weight” of standards), so it may be that they will start to pinpoint things (strategies, etc.) outside of revising their standards (which prompts the question—at least to me—as to whether TJC will eventually carve out the FAQs into specific elements of performance…only time will tell). At any rate, HFAP had done some updating prior (already approved by CMS) to the recent CMS memorandum, but, in using existing CMS guidance (which tends not to be too specific in terms of how you do things), should be in reasonable shape. You can see a little more detail as to where the applicable HFAP standards “live” by checking out this and this. I would imagine that the other accreditation organizations are looking at/planning on how to go after this stuff in the field and I suspect that everyone is going to get a taste of over-interpretation and all that fun stuff.

In the “dropping of the other shoe” department, recent survey results are pointing towards a more concerted look at the “back end” of this whole process—clear identification of mitigation strategies, education of applicable staff to the risks and mitigation strategies, and building this whole process into ongoing competency evaluation. You really have to look at the proactive risk assessment (and please, please, please make sure that you identify everything in the environment as a risk to be managed; I know it’s a pain in the butt to think so, but there continues to be survey findings relating to items the survey team feels are risks that were not specifically identified in the assessment) as the starting point and build a whole system/program around that assessment, inclusive of initial and ongoing education, ongoing competency evaluation, etc. Once again, I would seem that we are not going to be given credit for doing the math in our (collective) head; you have to be prepared to “show” all your work, because if you don’t, you’ll find yourself with a collection of survey findings in the orange/red sections of the ol’ SAFER matrix—and that is not a good thing at all. We are (likely) not perfect in the management of behavioral health patients and that is clearly the goal/end game of this, but right now anything short of that has to be considered a vulnerability. If you self-identify a risk that you have not yet resolved and you do not specifically indicate the mitigation strategy (in very nearly all circumstances, that’s going to be one-to-one observation), then you are at survey risk. I cannot stress enough that (at least for the now) less is not more, so plan accordingly!

CMS Ligature Risk Update: Not quite finished…

Cast aside the doubt that nothing good came come this way again!

On July 20, 2018, CMS issued further information regarding its expectations for ensuring that behavioral health patients are being provided a safe and appropriate environment. There had been some indication that CMS might be undertaking their own analysis of the current state of things, but it appears that CMS is going to incorporate the outcomes of The Joint Commission’s (TJC) suicide panel (in which CMS representatives participated) into a comprehensive ligature risk interpretive guidance. The memorandum does not indicate when we can expect the finalized interpretive guidance, but things do seem to be moving at a pretty good clip, so I’m thinking (maybe, just maybe), we’ll see that information before the end of the year. As a point of information (and you know I’m all about the points), the Joint Commission guidance cited in the CMS memorandum can be found here: and some clarifying FAQs issued by TJC last month (but not specifically referenced in the CMS memorandum) can be found here: (the information specific to ligature risks is about half way down the page). I know we’ve covered this over the past few months, but I can never be sure at which point in the conversation folks tune in, so I figured it doesn’t hurt to have links for what is current (at the moment…).

For those of you who have not yet tackled all of the particulars relating to the guidance issued from Joint Commission (mostly because you do not use TJC for deemed status accreditation purposes), I do think that the compliance path appears to be fairly reasonable and straightforward from an implementation standpoint. That said, until the interpretive guidance is finalized by CMS, there will likely continue to be some surveyor interpretation in the mix, particularly on the part of those accreditation and regulatory organizations other than Joint Commission (DNV, CIHQ, HFAP, state agencies, etc.). Which means it will be incumbent upon pretty much all hospitals to know where they stand relative to TJC recommendations, particularly as a function of how the strategies and facilities modifications they’ve made meet the intent of the recommendations. Some recent non-TJC survey activities indicate that the “other” accreditation organizations are starting to focus on this topic and, right now, are very much where TJC was in early 2017 when surveyors were inclined to identify anything and everything as a potential, unmanageable risk. And lots of re-surveys following in the wake of those determinations

Beyond a familiarity/assessment relative to the TJC recommendations, the “other” piece of which you need to be mindful is that whatever fixes they identify need to be completed before survey or there will likely be some back and forth relative to Immediate Threat, the need for re-survey, etc.  As we’ve discussed in the past (and this surely goes beyond ligature-resistant hardware), a lot of folks with a significant number of fixes are very much at the mercy of the supplies of needed hardware, etc. At a minimum, hospitals that haven’t completed their “laundry list” of fixes must have a risk assessment in place that outlines not only what is to be done from a facilities standpoint, but what strategies are in place to ensure that the risk to patients is being properly managed in the interim (this is very similar to the survey methodology dealing with Interim Life Safety Measures). As I’ve told folks time and again, you don’t get credit for doing the math in your head—at the end of the day, when you have a survey team “in the house,” the only “good” risk assessment is a risk assessment that is fully documented, approved by the appropriate organizational authorities, etc. If you don’t have an assessment ready to go for survey, it’s likely to be a very tough slog.

At any rate, it does appear that this one is going to be winding down in terms of survey activity, which will bring no small measure of relief to the survey preparation process, but it does beg the question of whether this is the last big environmental dope-slap or if there’s something else waiting in the wings to make us crazy. Any thoughts?