RSSAll Entries Tagged With: "Life Safety Code"

If there weren’t challenges…

…it really wouldn’t be an event that requires emergency response.

Somehow over the last little while, the fundamental nature of what constitutes an emergency and, even more importantly, what an appropriate response looks like, appears to have morphed over time. Now we seem to embrace the expectation that whatever happens, hospitals are going to be right on top of things (in a way that, frankly, doesn’t seem to apply to them that would sit in judgment, but that might be something of an editorial comment). But really, can you imagine what would have happened a year ago when pretty much everybody else was working from home, suspending normal operations, etc. (in full recognition that healthcare facilities don’t have the option of opting out of such things)? Now a lot of folks (and no, I’m not going to name names—if you don’t know, then it’s probably just as well) are playing catch-up and generating a wee bit of chaos as they get back to it. Happy happy, joy joy!

At any rate, I do hope that all the surveyors out there kicking the EM tires are paying close attention to some of the information contained in the CMS updates to the emergency preparedness requirements, including:

  • It’s OK for your response process to be the same for multiple risks/hazards
  • Your HVA/program must address each type of hazard, but your policies and procedures can indeed be consolidated (can you imagine how many binders you would need?!?)
  • It is not the job of the surveyor to analyze the appropriateness of the identified risks; their job is to make sure that your program (including policies and procedures) align with your risk assessments (speaking of your risk assessments, they must be demonstrably facility-based/community-based and they must include staffing considerations; emerging infectious disease planning must be in the mix—no surprise there)
  • It is OK (and certainly much more effective) to have each organization’s EM person “show” the requested elements as opposed to surveyor “browsing” of the plan, etc. (the CMS guidance encourages the use of crosswalks to more quickly/readily identify where the component pieces “live”)
  • It is also OK to have your documentation in whatever format makes sense: hard copy, electronic, etc.

I think these are fairly representative of a common-sense approach to surveying compliance with the EM standards; I guess we’ll see how things unfold in the field…

Just a few odds and ends to wrap things up:

  • They encourage the use of the ASPR-TRACIE checklists; lots of good stuff there and well worth poking around and discovering.
  • Emergency power—you have to have what is required by the Life Safety Code® (LSC)/COP for your facility; but please remember that any additional emergency power considerations must be maintained in accordance with the LSC (and, by extension, NFPA 110 et al). I think some folks have this sense that anything not required by the LSC/110 combo can be maintained in whatever fashion they like. This seems to be drawing a line in the sand that they’re not buying it (again, I guess we’ll see what happens in the field—maybe anything that is not LSC-related isn’t offered up for scrutiny); also, they do not allow extension cords to directly connected to generators; generator must interface with facility through transfer system.
  • Functional exercises, mock disaster drills and workshops can be used to count towards the activation requirements (by the way, long-term care facilities are on the hook for annual education; everyone else can go with biannual).
  • Inpatient facilities need to have two years of documentation present; outpatient facilities have to have four years available.
  • Emergency plans are expected to evolve (mutate?) over the course of a long-term event (and I think we know a little something about that…), your plan should include provisions for monitoring guidance from public health.
  • Your plan must include provisions for tracking staff when electronic payroll systems, etc., not available—for example, power outages, etc. consider check-in procedures for on-duty and off-duty staff.
  • Your plan must include a process for communicating with the various AHJS (and, boy howdy, aren’t there an awful lot of those kicking around); as well as provisions for surge planning. As for staffing, while the use of volunteers is optional, there is an expectation that you will have a process for managing them. Over the years, I’ve run into any number of folks that were not at all inclined to deal with volunteer practitioners, but I think the days when that was a reasonable decision point are rapidly fading into the distance.
  • Your plan must also include a process for evacuating patients that refuse to do so; I figure there must be some empirical information that drove the inclusion of this in the guidance. I’m presuming that you have a process already for dealing with recalcitrant individuals, including patients, so I don’t know that this breaks any ground.

Now that I’ve finished typing this, I really don’t see a lot that I would considering troubling or, indeed, troublesome. I would imagine that a lot of this stuff has become rather more hard-wired than not over the past 15 months or so, if it were not already. I think there were a lot of common lessons learned, though the “equation” for “solving” the challenges is probably unique to every organization (unless you’re part of a system in which the facilities are virtually identical). From a compliance standpoint, I think you folks should be OK, but please reach out if you feel otherwise.

So, with June bearing down on us, I trust that you all continue to be well and are staying safe. See you next week!

The roar of the ’20s continues: Optimism abounds!

I trust that you all were able to carve out some downtime over the holidays. While there was (seemingly) much less rushing around than normal, in many ways, the past month or so has been no less exhausting. At any rate, I hope this finds you well and ready for the climb up (out?).

As mentioned the last time we “gathered,” our friends in Chicago are in the process of modifying the survey of the physical environment as it extends to behavioral health organizations. As fate would have it, the changes revolve around ongoing efforts to align Joint Commission standards and performance elements with the requirements of NFPA 101-2012 Life Safety Code® (LSC) and NFPA 99-2012 Health Care Facilities Code, including clarification of fire drill requirements. A couple of items of particular note follow:

  • Behavioral healthcare facilities that use door locking to prohibit individuals from leaving the building or spaces in the building are considered healthcare occupancies. I don’t see this as an issue for inpatient units as this already the “mark,” but it may come into play in your outpatient clinic settings and perhaps any residential care settings. With all the changes in the survey process relating to care locations outside of the main hospital, I think proper identification of occupancy classifications is going to be under greater scrutiny than ever.
  • If you do have residential board and care facilities in your organization, they’ll be looking for at least six fire drills per year for each building and that means evacuation (unless otherwise permitted by the LSC; please check out NFPA 101-2012: 32/33.7.3 for details and exceptions), two of which need to be conducted at night when residents are sleeping. For some strange reason, the pre-publication standard indicates that “at least two annual drills” would be conducted during the night; I think this is probably one more word—that being “annual”—than it needs to be. I don’t know, it just seems less clear than saying, perhaps, at least two drills per year would be conducted at night or something like that. But that may just be me.
  • Depending on the capacity of the branches of your essential electrical system, you may have some flexibility relative to the number of required transfer switches; your system must still be divided into three branches (life safety, critical, equipment), but if your system is 150kVA or less, then you don’t need to have at least one automatic transfer switch for each branch. I suspect that most folks that have facilities that were constructed, had a change in occupancy type, or undergone a major electrical system upgrade since 1983 are probably all set with this, but I think we can anticipate the question being asked—better to know what you have going in, and probably a useful piece of information to include on your Statement of Conditions.

The LS chapter changes appear to be aimed at ensuring that the requirements for new and existing occupancies are appropriately noted; at this point, I don’t see anything particularly problematic, but, as they so often note in the fine print, actual results may vary. You can find the details here.

As I look out the window, it’s snowing, which reminds me that we’ve got to keep turning with the world, so I will let you get back to it. Until next time, hope you are well and staying safe. For those of you who are in the process of receiving the vaccine, thank you for your service!

If you’re the AHJ, it really isn’t an “interpretation,” is it?

I’m sure we all have stories about Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) whose “sense” of what is required by code was less operationally friendly than one might have preferred. The instructor at my first educational program at NFPA headquarters indicated that there is a single response to any question than can be asked regarding compliance with (in this case, but it applies fairly universally) the Life Safety Code®: “It depends.” There may be some that think that that was a rather flippant thing to say, but in my experience it holds way more truth than hyperbole, pretty much to the point of embracing it as a central concept for pursuing compliance. The corollary that extends from that is one of the other compliance “truths”: Any AHJ can disagree with any decision you’ve made, or, indeed, anything that they or another (competing) AHJ might have told you in the past. A good example of this is when you run into a state surveyor who is not particularly inclined to “honor” an existing waiver or equivalency. If I’ve learned anything over the past X number of years, it’s that results of previous encounters have little bearing on future encounters.

At any rate, I recently received a question regarding the audibility of occupant notification appliances as a function of NFPA 72 and the interpretation of an AHJ that there is no such thing as an “average ambient sound level.” It would seem that this particular interpretation is based on the “sense” that “average ambient sound level” (and it’s cousin “ambient sound level”) are unrelated to any measurements taken by a contractor or through the AHJ’s office. As we know (being the stewards responsible for ensuring that care environment is as functionally quiet as possible), NFPA 72 does indeed invoke (for audible public mode appliances) that the sound level of those appliances must have a sound level of at least 15 dB above the average ambient sound level or 5 dB above the maximum sound level having a duration of at least 60 seconds, whichever is greater, etc. NFPA 72 also stipulates a process for making that determination, calling for sound pressure level being measure over the period of time any person is present, or a 24-hour period, whichever time period is lesser. And to be honest, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen (perhaps because I never asked for it, but I may start) any documentary evidence of that measurement when determining the sound levels for a fire alarm system.

So, the thought occurs to me that it is entirely possible that, based on his observations and experience, his statement regarding the measurement of ambient noise levels is accurate to the extent of that experience, etc. He may know the contractor that installs fire alarm systems in his jurisdiction and received feedback that the process stipulated under NFPA 72 is not routinely included in acceptance testing of a system. Or it may be that, in his determination, the standard industry practice in his jurisdiction is not sufficiently consistent to allow for the use of the ambient noise levels as a determining factor and has identified an acceptable range for his jurisdiction (75 to 110 dB). He also knows that his office is not performing this measurement, so his statement, while perhaps a bit hyperbolic, is accurate from his standpoint. But I know there are areas in which even 75 dB can make quite a racket (I’m thinking recovery rooms, ICUs, etc.), which leads me to a closing anecdote.

Back when I was responsible for day-to-day operations, I had (on a number of occasions) tried to convince my local AHJ that we could reduce the volume of the notification appliances in the PACU (which, of course, begs the question of why anyone would spec audible devices in the PACU, but sometimes…) and still achieve the same level of safety in the event of fire, etc. (primarily based on staffing levels), but I couldn’t sell that scheme. This went on over the course of several years until one day I happened to find out this individual was coming in for surgery and darn if there wasn’t a fire alarm activation when he was in the PACU. Long story, short: His next visit resulted in him signing off on reducing the volumes on the appliances (I couldn’t get my boss to sign off on replacing them—lean budget times, but sometimes you have to take what you can get).

Hope you’re staying away from any exceptionally pesky AHJs, but if you’re dealing with an unbending presence, I hope you get the opportunity to cast some illumination on your “interpretation.”

Take care and stay safe!

Brother/Sister, can you spare a sprinkler head?

This week, I continue my ruminations on all things relating to outpatient care sites (Quick question: Is there anyone out there who doesn’t have responsibility for any outpatient care locations? I hope not, because this is probably getting a little tedious, though I guess in that hope it means that your existence has become more complicated over time, but if you don’t, you probably will). At any rate, this week’s tidbit revolves around the requirements for all (and I do mean “all”) properties having sprinkler heads to have a list of the sprinkler heads installed in the property, with the list being posted in the sprinkler cabinet. I think everyone is familiar with the requirements to have a stock of spare sprinklers, which would include all the types and ratings installed, with the number of spares guided by the following algorithm:

6.2.9.5 The stock of spare sprinklers shall include all types and ratings installed and shall be as follows (this also shows up in NFPA 25-2011 in Chapter 5) :

(1) For protected facilities having under 300 sprinklers – no fewer than 6 sprinklers

(2) For protected facilities having 300 to 1000 sprinklers – no fewer than 12 sprinklers

(3) For protected facilities having over 1000 sprinklers – no fewer than 24 sprinklers

By the way, the information contained in this week’s missive is sourced from the 2010 edition of NFPA 13 Standard for Installation of Sprinkler Systems, which came into play when CMS adopted the 2012 edition of the Life Safety Code® (LSC). As a cautionary note, now this information “lives” in NFPA 25 Standard for the Inspection, Testing & Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, so if you happen to have a state authority having jurisdiction that’s using a more recent edition of the LSC, then NFPA 25 is where you’ll find this stuff.

At any rate, back to that all-important list (and kudos to those of you who have your lists in place), bopping back to NFPA 13, we find the following:

6.2.9.7.1* The list shall include the following:

(1) Sprinkler identification number (SIN) if equipped; or the manufacturer, model, orifice, deflector type, thermal sensitivity, and pressure rating

(2) General description

(3) Quantity of each type to be contained in the cabinet

(4) Issue or revision date of the list

The Appendix provides a little more info:

A.6.2.9.7.1 The minimum information in the list contained in the spare sprinkler cabinet should be marked with the following:

(1) General description of the sprinkler, including upright, pendent, residential, ESFR, and so forth

(2) Quantity of sprinklers to be maintained in the spare sprinkler cabinet

Where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, is the requirement for an annual verification of all this stuff:

NFPA 25-2011: 5.2.1.4 The supply of sprinklers shall be inspected annually for the following:

(1) The correct number and type of sprinklers as required by 5.4.1.4 and 5.4.1.5

(2) A sprinkler wrench for each type of sprinkler as required by 5.4.1.5.6

5.4.1.5* A supply of at least six spare sprinklers shall be maintained on the premises so that any sprinklers that have operated or been damaged in any way can be promptly replaced.

A.5.4.1.5 – A minimum of two sprinklers of each type and temperature rating installed should be provided.

5.4.1.5.1 The sprinklers shall correspond to the types and temperature ratings of the sprinklers in the property.

5.4.1.5.2 The sprinklers shall be kept in a cabinet located where the temperatures will at no time exceed 100 degrees F.

5.4.1.4.2.1 Where dry sprinklers of different lengths are installed, spare dry sprinklers shall not be required, provided that a means of returning the system to service is furnished.

So that’s the partial skinny on sprinklers; the primary reason for plunking this down in front of you is because this showed up as a finding (mostly the list, but the other stuff is fair game) in a recent survey (not The Joint Commission, but these things tend to move through the various regulatory tribes).

I did want to leave you with a final thought for the week. I subscribe to a weekly email newsletter from James Clear (the following lives here); I find the newsletter interesting and much more often than not, useful, so I give you:

“What is the real goal?

  • The real goal is not to ‘beat the market.’ The goal is to build wealth.
  • The real goal is not to read more books. The goal is to understand what you read.
  • Don’t let a proxy become the target. Don’t optimize for the wrong outcome.”

Stay well and stay safe—that’s all I need you to do!

If you don’t signal, how will I know where you want to go? Emergency management and its discontents (Just What You Needed)!

Kind of a mixed bag this week, though it all fits under the heading of emergency management, so here goes nothing…

A few weeks ago, USA Today did a story on the preparedness levels of the United States based on an analysis of state-by-state metrics. The story was based on a study, the National Health Security Preparedness Index, prepared by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and covers a lot of ground relative to trends in preparedness, including governmental spending on preparedness and some other stuff. The reason I “noticed” this was the indication that my home state was “best prepared” for disasters, etc., but the overarching message was that, even in the face of some setbacks in individual regions, the nation continues to improve emergency preparedness. Of course, it being USA Today, there are color slides indicating where each state ranks among the fabulous 50, so if you thought there was no scorekeeping on this front…

OK, maybe not keeping score, but a certain accreditation agency is keeping an eye on all things relating to preparedness. In this blog post, Jim Kendig (field director for the Life Safety Code® surveyors at The Joint Commission, and a very knowledgeable fellow when it comes to this stuff) provides a really good overview of the Preparedness Index and describes it in terms of how the various pieces can (and do) fit together and provide the foundation for an effective emergency management program. I see no reason why we can’t expect something more of a deep dive in the coming survey cycle and I think you’ll find the information Jim shares to be really helpful.

As a final thought for this week, it is always the case that what constitutes a mass casualty incident varies from organization to organization, but if you want to catch a glimpse of how this gets framed within the context of one of the largest metropolitan areas on the planet, the Greater New York Hospital Association developed a Mass Casualty Incident Response Toolkit that you might find worth checking out. There’s a ton of information, tools/forms, and links to more tools/forms, etc., to review in this space, but I encourage you to give the materials a look-see. It does appear that the nature of what we can expect to show up at our collective front doors is shifting and anything that facilitates better positioning to deal with an emergency is worth our time and energies.

Walls and Bridges: Managing construction projects large and small

As you might guess, part of my approach when I’m doing onsite client work is to review the process for managing construction projects, inclusive of the risk assessment process (infection control, life safety). To my mind, there is no more risky business in the physical environment (the management of ligature risks notwithstanding) than undertaking construction or renovation projects, particularly when those projects are in spaces adjacent to occupied patient care (or indeed, any occupied) areas. And with the adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code® (LSC) and the growing invocation of Chapter 43 Building Rehabilitation, it would seem that the tip of the regulatory spear is getting sharper by the moment.

One of the things that I encounter with some regularity is a fundamental flaw in how the risk assessment actually captures/identifies the risks to be managed as a function of what strategies are to be implemented to eliminate/mitigate the impact of those risks. For example, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen assessments of a project that is going to include construction barrier walls in a corridor for which the assessment indicates no impact on egress. Now, you can certainly indicate that, based on the implementation of X, Y, and Z, you have mitigated the impact on egress, but to indicate in the assessment that there was no impact on egress from a barrier wall that has encroached on the corridor, is inaccurate at best—and possibly could draw the ire of a literalist surveyor. As I like to tell folks when I encounter this: You don’t get credit for doing the math in your head; the assessment should indicate that there was an impact, but the impact was mitigated by the implementation of ILSM(s).

Similarly, if you remove the suspended ceiling in a project area, you have impaired the smoke detection/sprinkler protection in the area. Now it may be that the impairment is sufficiently minor in nature to not require implementation of ILSMs, based on your policy, but you still have to indicate that such is the case. You can’t say there was no impact or impairment, because the condition you have represents an impairment and so, there’s got to be some level of impact.

I think perhaps the way to look at this is much in the vain of our emergency management Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (HVA) process. There is no harm/no foul in identifying risks for which you would need to be prepared (you could make the case that there are few things as disruptive to an organization as a construction project) as long as you have a strategy for managing those risks. So, if you carry over the philosophy to construction/renovation, it makes it “easier” to frame the assessment as a proactive management of risks rather than trying to figure out how to do as little as possible (and I do see pre-construction risk assessments that seem to be aimed at a de minimis implementation strategy). But using the HVA algorithm (likelihood, impact, preparedness, response) you might find that your “packaging” is a little tidier than it was previously.

As a final note on this subject, I really think you need to get in the habit (if the habit has not already formed) of posting infection control permits, ILSM permits, etc., outside of construction/renovation areas so it is clear what the expected conditions and/or practices might be. You can’t be looking over the shoulder of the contractors every minute, so it helps to have some eyes in the field (with a reasonable knowledge base) keeping watch. There is definitely an expectation of regulatory surveyors that these will be posted in conspicuous locations (yeah, I know there’s no rule that says you have to, so chalk this up to a best practice invocation), so better to have visible postings.

Please let me close things out with best wishes for a joyous and restful (Can you combine those two? I think you can!) Thanksgiving to you and your families. 2018 whipped along at a pretty good clip and I suspect that the holidays will launch us into 2019 before too long, so take a few deep breaths and enjoy the day.

I may not be perfect, but I’m perfect for you: CMS rates the accreditation organizations!

Another mixed bag of stuff for you this week, leading off with a quick spin through CMS’ report card to Congress.

While the numbers have shifted around a little, infection control is making a move on the outside, but the physical environment is still the big point of focus, though you can see where the two are starting to cross over at a greater frequency. I think issues relating to ligature risks are going to be a very sharp focus, particularly with CMS surveys. Although it is interesting to note that (at least at the moment) when ligature risks come up in the CMS survey process, those risks have been cited under the Patient Rights Condition of Participation (each patient has a right to receive care in a safe setting), so we may see Patient Rights at the top of the heap next year. One way you can avoid that little dance of ignominy is to make sure that you have completed a comprehensive ligature risk assessment in those areas in which you are managing behavioral health patients, including mitigation strategies for items that cannot be immediately corrected and solid anticipated completion dates. They are taking ligature risks very seriously because of the potential for harm to patients and you don’t want to have a whole lot of open-ended plans of correction. It almost comes down to a sense that everything that exists is a potential risk to be managed and while I am hopeful that cooler heads will prevail, right now this is a very, very hot topic.

One other thing to note with the report card is a section that deals with an analysis of survey disparity relating to Life Safety Code® compliance and health and safety considerations. I’ve looked at the contents of this section, including their conclusions and recommendations, and I have a hard time thinking that this is ever going to go away as a survey focus. While I tend not to rely on absolutes when it comes to periods of time, I can say quite confidently that there will always be stuff to find during a survey. You can look today and find stuff, you can look tomorrow and find different stuff, you can look the day after and—you guessed it! Stuff happens; people do stuff we don’t want them to, including unauthorized field modifications. The list is literally and figuratively endless. I know they have to find something, but as a collective, I think most hospitals are very well maintained and managed as a function of the physical environment. But if the big “C” knocks on the door (and I guess we have to include the minions as well), there’s going to be a list of stuff. Our job is to keep that list to a minimum. Good luck with that!

Documentary evidence: Sounds like you’re going to have to push a little more paper next survey!

A few weeks ago, our friends in Chicago upped the ante in releasing the updated documentation list for the Life Safety portion of the survey (you can find it—and I really, really, really suggest that you do so sooner rather than later—by logging into your Joint Commission portal and the clicking through the following internal links: > Survey Process, > Survey Activity Guide, > Additional Resources). And this is definitely a case of the list having shifted towards documentation of activities and conditions for which folks have been struggling to get in line. Now, from anecdotal discussions with folks, there’s not always a ton of time available for document review. So, in a lot of instances, the focus is on inspection, testing and maintenance of fire alarm and suppression systems equipment, emergency and standby power supply systems, medical gas and vacuum systems, with some “drift” into fire drills and other more or less standard areas of concern/coverage, including the management plans (sometimes—and those don’t appear to have earned a mention on the updated list).

However, according to that same updated document list, looks like a lot of focus on inventory lists (operating components of utility systems; high-risk operating components on your inventory, infection control components); “embracing” (you can think of that as reviewing and adopting) manufacturer recommendations for inspection, testing and maintenance of utility systems or outlining the Alternative Equipment Maintenance program being used. And the same types of things for medical equipment—inventory, high risk equipment, consideration of manufacturer recommendations, etc. It also appears that there will be focus on sterilizer inspection, testing, and maintenance; compliance of your hyperbaric facilities (if you have them) with Chapter 14 of NFPA 99-2012; testing manual transfer switches in your emergency power supply system. Let’s see, what else…oh yes, for those of you with recently (I’m guessing that pesky July 6, 2016 date is the key point in time) constructed or renovated procedural areas, you need to make sure that you have (and are testing) task lighting in deep sedation and general anesthesia areas (the annual testing requirement is for a 30-minute test).

I’m sure there’s other stuff that will pop to the surface as we move through this next phase of the survey process; I’m curious about how much in-depth looking they’re going to be able to do and still be able to get to the lion’s share of your building (unless they start using unmanned drones…). I’m also curious that they don’t specifically indicate the risk assessment identified in Chapter 4 of NFPA 99-2012 (it has been asked for during CMS surveys), but that may be for the next iteration. Part of me can’t help but think back to those glory days when we wished for adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code®; I guess we can take full advantage of the operational flexibilities inherent in suite configuration and a couple more things, but it never really seems to get any easier, does it?

At any rate, please hop on your organization’s TJC portal and give the updated list a look. If you see something that gives you hives, sing out: we’re all here to help!

The mystery of the disappearing EP and other tales

I have no way to be certain of the numbers, but I do know of at least one organization that fell victim in 2017 to an Element of Performance (EP) that has since gone “missing.” Once upon a time, EC.02.05.03 (having a reliable emergency electrical source) had an EP (#10, to be precise) that, among other things, required hospital emergency power systems (EPS) to have a remote manual stop station (with an identifying label, natch!) to prevent inadvertent or unintentional operation. (I’m not really sure how a big ol’ stop button that’s labeled would prevent somebody from inadvertently operating the emergency power system; it would surely help if the inadvertent operation happened, but prevention…)

So, to follow this back to the applicable NFPA citation NFPA 110-2010 5.6.5.6, we find “(a)ll installations shall have a remote manual stop station of a type to prevent inadvertent or unintended operation located outside the room housing the prime mover, where so installed, or elsewhere on the premises where the prime mover is located outside the building.” The Explanatory Material goes on to indicate that “(f)or systems located outdoors, the manual shutdown should be located external to the weatherproof enclosure and appropriately identified.” So, that all seems pretty straightforward, don’t you think.

Well, recently (last week) I was working with a hospital that had not bumped into EC.02.05.03, EP 10 and, since I had not yet committed the standard and EP numbers to memory (every time things get changed, I swear to myself that I will not memorize the numbers, but somehow it always ends up happening…), we went to look at the online portal to the standards. And we looked, and looked, and looked some more, and could not find the EP for the remote manual stop. I just figured that I had sufficiently misremembered where this EP, so my plan was to look at survey reports that I know included RFIs for not having the remote manual stops and go from there. So, I looked it up in the survey report, checked the online portal and, guess what? No more EP 10 (in the interest of the complete picture, this EP also requires emergency lighting within 10 seconds at emergency generator locations and a remote annunciator (powered by storage battery) located outside the emergency power system location). Now, from a strict compliance standpoint, as the 2010 edition of NFPA 110 is the applicable code edition based on adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code® (and I did check the 2013 and 2016 editions, each of which contain the same requirements), I can only guess that the requirements contained in EP 10 are still actionable if your (or anybody else’s) AHJ sees fit to cite a deficiency in this regard, so it’s probably worth keeping a half an eye out for further developments if you have not yet gotten around to installing the lighting, remote stop, and annunciators for your emergency power system equipment locations.

Also, just to alert you to (yet) another offering from ECRI, this past week saw the unveiling of the Top 10 Patient Safety Concerns (download the white paper here). There are a few items on the list that should be of interest to you folks (in bold):

  1. Diagnostic errors
  2. Opioid safety across the continuum of care
  3. Care coordination within a setting
  4. Workarounds
  5. Incorporating health IT into patient safety programs
  6. Management of behavioral health needs in acute care settings
  7. All-hazards emergency preparedness
  8. Device cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization
  9. Patient engagement and health literacy
  10. Leadership engagement in patient safety

I haven’t delved too much into the latest emergency preparedness stuff (ECRI’s take, as well as the Johns Hopkins report), but I’ve queued that up on my reading list for this week, just as soon as I dig out from our most recent wintry spectacular—currently raging outside my window, so I’m going to send this on its way before the power gets too dodgy…

You don’t have to be a weather(person)man to tell: Kicking off survey year 2018!

Your guess is as good as mine…

Just a couple of brief items (relatively—you know how I do go on, but I will try) of interest. I don’t know that there’s a common theme besides an effort to anticipate in which direction the survey winds might blow in 2018:

  •  Previously in this space, I’ve mentioned the work of Matt Freije and his team at HCInfo as they have done yeoman’s (yeoperson’s?) work in the field of water systems management and the “fight” against In response to last year’s letter of intent by CMS to take a more focused look at how hospitals and nursing homes are providing appropriately safe water systems for their patients, Mr. Freije has developed a checklist to help folks evaluate their current situations and has posted the checklist online for comment, suggestions, etc. I’m having a hard time thinking that this might not become something of a hardship for folks arriving late to the party, so if you’ve not yet embraced poking around this subject (and even if you have), you’d do well to check out the checklist.
  •  A couple of inspection items relative to the ongoing rollout of the various and sundry changes wrought by the adoption of the 2012 Life Safety Code®, some of which have yet to migrate in detail to the accreditation organization publications (at least the ones that I’ve seen), but have popped up during recent CMS surveys:
    • Make sure you fire alarm circuit breakers are clearly marked in red (check out NFPA 72 10.5.5.2 for the skinny on this).
    • Make sure your ILSM/fire watch policy/process reflects the appropriate AHJs—you need to make sure that you know for sure whether your state department of public health, et al, want to be notified. They do in California, and probably elsewhere.
    • In NFPA 25, chapters 5 and 13 indicate some monthly inspections of gauges, valves for condition, appropriate position (open or closed) and normal pressures—again, they’re not specifically listed in the accreditation manuals yet, but I suspect that they’ll be coming to a survey report near you before too long.
    • A final note for the moment in this category, NFPA 70 (2011 edition) 400.10 indicates that “flexible cords and cables shall be connected to devices and to fittings so that tension is not transmitted to joints of terminals.” Keep an eye on power strips, particularly in your IT and communications closets for those dangling power strips (and some of them aren’t so much dangling as they are pulled across open spaces, etc. I suspect you know what I mean.) I know the folks who manage this stuff think that we are just being pains in the butt, but now you may have a little codified leverage.
  •  In my post a couple of weeks ago, I don’t think I played the personal protective equipment (PPE) card with sufficient gravity; part of folks’ understanding of the hazards of using chemicals is recognizing the importance of actually using appropriate PPE as identified on the product SDS. When you think about it, the emergency eyewash station is not intended to be the first line of defense in the management of exposures to chemical hazards, but rather what happens when there is an emergency exposure. If the use of PPE is hardwired into the process, then the only time they’ll need to use the eyewash equipment is when they do their weekly testing. At that, my friends, is as it should be.