RSSAll Entries Tagged With: "managing risk"

Ready, Set, ICRA!

One of the more frequently recurring questions/concerns/vulnerabilities in my travels relates to when it is appropriate to do a (and I will use this term collectively) pre-construction risk assessment, inclusive of all the usual suspects: Noise, vibration, system shutdowns, etc. Clearly (and I know you know, because I see you knowing), the pieces of this puzzle that can get you into the most trouble in most rapid fashion are those relating to infection control and interim life safety measures.

My (moderately) tongue-in-cheek response to any questions about “when” you would employ has typically been “always” (I remember the first time the question came up at a conference and my response was the same—and I’m sticking to my guns on this). My general philosophy as it relates to risk assessments is that we always assess for risk and we implement only what is necessary to manage those risks.

At any rate, as your “homework” for this week (and I would very much like to hear how you folks are parsing this), please look over the list below and figure out where you’ve placed the dividing line for your risk assessment process (basically, where you’d do an assessment and where you wouldn’t), particularly as a function of the Chicago requirement to “when planning for demolition, construction, renovation, or general maintenance [my bolding], the hospital conducts a preconstruction risk assessment for air quality requirements, infection control, utility requirements, noise, vibration, and other hazards that affect care, treatment, and services.” I firmly believe that this balancing act is going to be become a key component of survey oversight. (I would be more than happy to be wrong about this, but somehow I think things are moving in this direction.)

So please look over these perky little definitions and let me know your thoughts:

43.2.2.1 Categories of Rehabilitation Work. The nature and extent of rehabilitation work undertaken in an existing building.

43.2.2.1.1 Repair. The patching, restoration, or painting of materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures for the purpose of maintaining such materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures in good or sound condition.

43.2.2.1.2 Renovation. The replacement in kind, strengthening, or upgrading of building elements, materials, equipment, or fixtures, that does not result in a reconfiguration of the building spaces within.

43.2.2.1.3 Modification. The reconfiguration of any space; the addition, relocation, or elimination of any door or window; the addition or elimination of load-bearing elements; the reconfiguration or extension of any system; or the installation of any additional equipment.

43.2.2.1.4* Reconstruction. The reconfiguration of a space that affects an exit or a corridor shared by more than one occupant space; or the reconfiguration of a space such that the rehabilitation work area is not permitted to be occupied because existing means of egress and fire protection systems, or their equivalent, are not in place or continuously maintained.

43.2.2.1.5 Change of Use. A change in the purpose or level of activity within a structure that involves a change in application of the requirements of the Code.

43.2.2.1.6 Change of Occupancy Classification. The change in the occupancy classification of a structure or portion of a structure.

43.2.2.1.7 Addition. An increase in the building area, aggregate floor area, building height, or number of stories of a structure.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose: Vive Le Joint Commission!

I apologize for not having gotten to this sooner, but sometimes the wind comes out of nowhere and you find yourself heading in a rather unexpected direction (I’ve never spent so much time in Texas!).

With the advent of each new year, our three-lettered friends in Chicago unveil the changes to the accreditation standards for the upcoming cycle. Most of the changes in the EC/LS/EM world (with a couple of fairly notable exceptions—more on those in a moment) have to do with a shift in focus for the Focused Standards Assessment (FSA) process as a function of the various specific risk areas (I will freely admit that this is a wee bit convoluted, but should not necessarily come as a surprise). At any rate, as part of the accreditation process, each organization is supposed to evaluate its compliance based on specific areas of concern/risk identified by The Joint Commission. Thus for 2016, some of the risks to be evaluated have gone away (at least for the moment) and other have been added to the mix:

Please remember: These are not going away entirely, they just don’t have to be included in your organization’s FSA process!

So, we bid adieu to specific analysis of the safety, hazardous materials, medical equipment, and utility systems management plans (leaving security and fire safety in the mix) and we say bonjour to the identification of safety and security risks (as you may have noted, I’m not indicating the specific standard and EP numbers—our friends get a little protective of their content, but if you really need to check out the numbers, please see your organization’s accreditation manual).

We say goodbye to implementing our hazardous material and waste spill/exposure procedures, the monitoring of gases and vapors, and proper routine storage and prompt disposal of trash; and say hello to the hazardous materials and waste inventory, the actual written hazmat and waste spill/exposure procedures, minimization of hazmat risks, ensuring that you have proper permits, licenses, etc., for hazardous materials, and labeling of hazardous materials.

We say howdy to a focused look at fire drills, including the critiques.

We greet a focus on the testing documentation relating to duct detectors, electromechanical releasing devices, heat detectors, manual fire alarm boxes and smoke detectors, as well as the documentation relating to fire dampers.

We say auf wiedersehen to focusing on the selection, etc., of medical equipment, the written inventory of medical equipment, SMDA reporting, inspection, testing and maintenance of non-high risk medical equipment, and performance testing of all sterilizers.

We say guten tag to the written utility components inventory, written frequencies for maintenance, inspection and testing of utility system components, written procedures for utility system disruptions, and minimization of pathogenic, biological agents in aerosolizing water systems.

We say konichiwa to a focus on the provision of safe and suitable interior spaces for patients and the maintenance of ventilation, temperature and humidity in all those other pesky areas (e.g., soiled utility rooms, clean utility rooms, etc.).

We say hola to a focus on whether or not staff (including LIPs) are familiar with their roles and responsibilities relative to the environment of care (I predict that this is one is going to start showing up on the top 10 list soon unless there is a dramatic shift in survey focus).

And we say “Hey-diddly-ho, good neighbor” to the use of hazard surveillance rounds to identify environmental deficiencies, hazards, and unsafe hazards, as well as ensuring that you have a good mix of participants in your EC Committee activities, particularly the analysis of data—clinical, administrative, and support services have to be represented.

Now, there are three standards changes that went into effect on January 1, 2016: one a shift to a different spot in the standards, one a fairly clarifying clarification, and one about which I am not quite sure what to make, though I somehow fear the worst…

The requirement for the results of staff dosimetry monitoring (CT, PET, nuclear medicine) to be reviewed at least quarterly shift from Safety to Hazardous Materials. The EP number remains the same (and I can give you 17 reasons for that…), but it’s only a shift in where it would be scored (another important reason for making sure that you have a solid relationship between your EOC Committee and your Radiation Safety Committee—I’m a great believer in having compliance information in a location where surveyors are more likely to encounter it: EOC Committee minutes).

The requirement for managing the risks associated with smoking activities was clarified to indicate that the risks have to be managed regardless of the smoking types (e-cigarettes and personal vaporizers are officially in the mix); I’m presuming that this is helpful to folks who have perhaps faced some resistance in this area.

And finally (we’ll cover the EM and LS changes next time—nothing particularly scary, but a little too voluminous for this rather dauntingly wordy blog post), the requirements based around the inspection, testing and maintenance of non-high-risk utility system equipment components has gone from a “C” Element of Performance (EP) to an “A” EP (they did remove the Method of Success requirement for a deficient finding in this area—I suspect that was as much for their own sanity as anything else. Plus, it never really made a great deal of sense to figure out how to monitor something over four months’ time that frequently occurs every six or 12 months). My sense is that they are making the change to increase the “cite-ability” of managing utility systems equipment; now they only need to find one instance of noncompliance for a finding. I don’t know that I’ve seen a ton of findings in this area, but I can’t honestly say that I’ve been doing a close count of the OFI section of the reports, so it may be that they’re seeing a trend with the non-high-risk utility equipment that makes them think we’re not doing as good a job managing as we should, but that is wholly and completely conjecture on my part. I will, of course, be keeping a close eye on this one; I have a sneaking suspicion that the focus on utility systems equipment is going to continue into the immediate future and this might just become another pressure point.

As a closing thought relative to the FSA and risk area discussion, I think we can reasonably intuit that (particularly since the FSA process, represents a process for self-reporting) the expectation is for folks to be looking very carefully at the requirements contained within the above-noted areas and that your compliance plans relative to those requirements will be well in hand come survey. For some reason, this shift “smells” like an approach that’s going to be that much more focused on organizational leadership when there are gaps (and ask anyone who’s had a bumpy survey these past couple of years—leadership gets dragged into the fray on a regular basis). The fact of the matter is that they will find something deficient in your facility—if they don’t, they didn’t look hard enough. It’s about having processes in place to recognize and manage those deficiencies appropriately (and yes, I recognize that I am running the risk of repeating myself). This is big-time crazy focus on this stuff—and we need to be continuously improving how we go about doing it (whatever “it” might be).

Back next week to cover the EM/LS stuff. Arrivederci for now!