All Entries Tagged With: "medical equipment"
Do you remember? Or even yesterday…
Way back in September of last year, we were chatting about the importance of appropriately managing conditions in the patient environment, primarily the surgical environment. For those wishing for a refresher, you can find that post here. (I talked about how I’ve noticed recent citation in surveys regarding the surgical environment, including the maintenance of temperature and humidity, ensuring appropriate air exchange rates, and making sure that your HVAC systems are appropriately maintaining pressure relationships, etc.)
One of the things I didn’t really cover back then was when you have documented out-of-range values. Could be temperature, could be humidity, could be those pesky air exchanges and/or pressure relationships. The fact of the matter is that we live in an imperfect world and, more often than not, our success comes down to how effectively we manage those imperfections. And that can, and does, come down to how well we’ve prepared staff at the point of care/service to be able to respond to conditions in the environment. But, in order to get there, you have to undertake a collaborative approach, involving your infection preventionist and the folks in the surgical environment.
The management of risk in the environment doesn’t happen because we have (or don’t have) nifty technology at our disposal; it’s because we can work collaboratively in ways that no building automation system or self-regulating HVAC equipment can. This idea has become an increasingly important part of the survey process. We know that more folks are harmed by hospital-acquired infections and other related conditions and I’ve seen it become a fairly significant survey vulnerability. So, let’s start talking about this stuff with the end users and make sure that we’re ahead of the curve on the matters of the care environment.
Manufacturer recommendations?!? We don’t need no stinkin’ manufacturer recommendations…
As you’re no doubt aware, there is some movement afoot relative to the inclusion (or exclusion, depending on your preference and organizational experience) of the risk assessment concept when it comes to the establishment of preventative maintenance frequencies for medical equipment. The Joint Commission has historically encouraged the use of data and past performance to provide a backdrop for the most efficient utilization of clinical engineering resources. However, CMS has been pretty adamant and absolute in their preference for manufacturer recommendations for PM frequencies to be the “be all, end all” source for determining such things.
As we take on the next in our informal series—CMS – what up with them?—we bounce once again to the web–
–and find that, lo and behold, there has been some relaxation in terms of scheduled PM frequency. The caveat, at least for the moment, is that although we can judiciously schedule preventative maintenance activities to our heart’s content, we’d best not stray from the manufacturer recommendations for what those activities will include.
Now, off the top of my head, I can’t think of too many instances in which you would modify manufacturer recommendations for such activities, but maybe you can. I’m not sure how effective this will be; my gut says it helps in the long run; the fundamental change is toward a more flexible planning (they’d have been looking for us to follow manufacturer recommendations for the PM activities anyways, so this is really nothing new as near as I can tell – please feel free to disabuse me of that notion).
What say all you clinical engineers out there?
Steris SS1 fans have new alternative to consider that is FDA-cleared
Those of you who have been fans of the maligned Steris System 1 (SS1) processor may be interested in knowing that the FDA has approved an alternative to that product from Steris.
The new item is called [more]
Look beyond The Joint Commission for rules on who inspects imaging items
The Joint Commission does not specify in the environment of care standards who inspects imaging equipment, but where this all kind of spins out from is in the CMS Conditions of Participation (COPs).
The Joint Commission has been working very diligently– though often, seemingly, at the business end of a sharp stick — to come into closer compliance with the COPs.
The COPs section on nuclear medicine (and yes I recognize that imaging and nuclear medicine are not necessarily synonymous, but sometimes compliance becomes a function of how far you can stretch a concept) requires the following [more]
Medical equipment cleaning: Bags, tags, and ribbons
The trick when it comes to cleaning medical equipment is how will frontline staff differentiate between clean and dirty items.
Some of the options I’ve seen include [more]
Stick to required policies in your physical environment program
Sometimes you hear about Joint Commission surveyors requesting to see certain policies in your physical environment program.
Joint Commission standards are not very prescriptive when it comes to the identification of specific policies. The only required policies are [more]
A 24-hour reporting period for medical device injuries is a good approach
I was asked by a hospital about its policy for reporting patient injury or death related to medical equipment use. The policy states that the reporting time frame for an incident is within 24 hours of the occurrence.
I looked at information posted [more]
Generators act as protagonists in a Katrina-themed court case
I wrote an article for HCPro’s sister company, HealthLeaders Media, about a trial going on in New Orleans that, believe it or not, may connect a patient death following Hurricane Katrina to poor emergency generator system design.
How many times have you either personally experienced or read about post-drill critiques that recommend infrastructure changes due to emergency power concerns? I hear about it [more]
Problem areas within the hospital for chemical risks
When it comes to minimizing chemical risks in the environment of care, the lab and pharmacy are definitely areas that have experienced the greatest improvements over time.
To be fair, those areas should be evaluating [more]
Put pressure on vendors after medical equipment mishaps
When it comes to medical device problems that don’t injure patients, exert some leverage back on your vendors in the absence of any regulatory structure.
I imagine that in the contractual relationships you have with vendors, they are on the hook to provide you with appropriately maintained equipment. I think that a vendor would at least be [more]
