RSSAll Entries Tagged With: "OSHA"

We advance, masked!

In the topsy turvy world of Personal Protective Equipment (aka PPE), there are some developments on the decontamination/reprocessing of masks that I wanted to bring to your attention, if you’ve not already scoped them out.

First up, a little more information from our friends at the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, where we find that the guidance issues to surveyors is to be somewhat judicious in how they chase issues relating to PPE, but the basic expectations of employers look like this:

  • Make a good-faith effort to provide and ensure workers use the most appropriate respiratory protection available for the hazards against which workers need to be protected. Efforts should be consistent with flexibilities outlined in OSHA’s previous COVID-19 enforcement memoranda.
  • When respirators must be decontaminated to facilitate their reuse in ways consistent with OSHA’s previous COVID-19 enforcement memoranda and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Respirators, ensure that decontamination is accomplished according to the methods described above and detailed in CDC’s Decontamination and Reuse of Filtering Facepiece Respirators using Contingency and Crisis Capacity Strategies.
  • Ensure users perform a user seal check each time they don a respirator. Employers should not permit use of a respirator on which the user cannot perform a successful user seal check. See 29 CFR § 1910.134, Appendix B-1, User Seal Check Procedures.[11]
  • Train employees to follow appropriate precautionary measures prior to using a decontaminated filtering facepiece respirator (FFR). See cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/decontamination-reuse-respirators.html.
  • Train employees using decontaminated respirators to understand that if the structural and functional integrity of any part of the respirator is compromised, it should not be used by that individual as respiratory protection. The inability to achieve a successful user seal check could be an indicator that the integrity of the respirator is compromised.
  • Visually inspect, or ensure that workers visually inspect, the FFRs to determine if the structural and functional integrity of the respirator has been compromised. Over time or as a result of the decontamination process, components such as the straps, nose bridge, and nose foam material may degrade, which can affect the quality of the fit and seal.
  • Train employees on the procedures for the sequence of donning/doffing to prevent self-contamination. See cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/PPE-Sequence-508.pdf.
  • If no manufacturer or third-party guidance or procedures are available to support the specific decontamination method(s) employed, avoid the use of decontaminated FFRs when healthcare personnel perform surgical procedures on patients infected with, or potentially infected with, SARS-CoV-2 or perform or are present for procedures expected to generate aerosols or procedures where respiratory secretions are likely to be poorly controlled (e.g., cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubation, extubation, bronchoscopy, nebulizer therapy, sputum induction). If decontamination methods degrade FFR performance, including filtration and fit, or otherwise affect structural integrity, the decontaminated FFR may not provide the level of protection needed or expected during aerosol-generating procedures.

I suspect that, in general, folks are being sufficiently attentive to their PPE (perhaps more than has ever been the case) that they are checking for integrity (though they may not be as familiar with the User Seal Check Procedure—could be a teachable moment). And the missive covers some decontamination methodologies that may be of interest, particularly in light of the FDA’s altered stance on decontamination and reprocessing of masks.

I guess the questions become those related to available supplies of PPE. I get the sense that some folks are still relying to a fair degree on the use of masks that are not NIOSH-approved and so this latest development could potentially mean that, in the absence of being able to decontaminate and reprocess, the supply chain is going to have to be considerably more robust in either providing more non-NIOSH masks or more NIOSH masks that can be appropriately decontaminated, etc. I’d be curious to hear of any experiences (good or not so) that you’ve had in this regard. It seems likely that, even as we try to get to the “new normal,” we’re going to be dealing with this for a while, so we might as well share the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Speaking of which (sort of), as a closing thought for this week, now that I am hanging out in airports again, one thing that I’ve noticed is the phenomenon of the smile that doesn’t reach someone’s eyes. Pre-mask, I don’t know that I analyzed transient interactions with folks, but I find myself responding to folks based on their “eye language” and I’ve found that it can turn what would typically be a (more or less) neutral transaction into a positive or negative. I suspect that most customer service training involves reminding folks to smile, but now that our smiles have been temporarily removed from the occasion, the eyes are all we have for first impressions. Don’t know if that’s useful to you, but something to ponder.

Be well and stay safe ’til next time!

A little mo’ from the Mighty O (ccupational Safety & Health Administration)

As they are wont to do, the folks at OSHA periodically issue safety alerts and it would seem that the ongoing challenges of managing the ongoing occupational health and safety aspects of COVID-19 is ripe for alerting. You can find the complete list of alerts on OSHA’s COVID-19 homepage.

Interestingly enough, OSHA has not (as of this writing) issued an alert specific to hospitals, but they did recently issue an alert aimed at nursing homes and long-term care facilities, the elements of which are, at the very least, instructive for other folks in the healthcare demographic; you can find the alert in its entirety here. I just wanted to plant a seed relative to a few of these:

  • Maintain at least 6 feet between workers, residents, and visitors, to the extent possible, including while workers perform their duties and during breaks.
  • Stagger break periods to avoid crowding in breakrooms.
  • Always follow good infection prevention and control practices. Consult OSHA’s COVID-19 guidance for healthcare workers and employers.
  • Provide handwashing facilities and alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol throughout facilities.
  • Regularly clean and disinfect shared equipment and frequently touched surfaces in resident rooms, staff work stations, and common areas.
  • Use hospital-grade cleaning chemicals approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from List N or EPA-approved, hospital grade cleaning chemicals that have label claims against the coronavirus.
  • Ensure workers have and use any personal protective equipment (PPE) they need to perform their jobs safely.
  • Continually monitor PPE stocks, burn rate, and supply chains. Develop a process for decontamination and reuse of PPE, such as face shields and goggles, as appropriate. Follow CDC recommendations for optimization of PPE supplies.
  • Train workers about how to protect themselves and residents during the pandemic.
  • Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns.

I don’t know that there’s anything on the list that doesn’t make sense, but I do think it might be useful/beneficial to keep an eye on these (and the other elements) to ensure you and your folks are not at elevated risk for exposure. Admittedly, there is still a lot we don’t know about the epidemiological aspects of COVID-19 and it may result in additional levels of guidance and/or protection (remember those halcyon days when masks were not required—seems like only months ago—oh, wait, I guess it was…). I also think it’s important to hear folks out if they voice frustrations with process, etc. A fair amount of this stuff is learning as we go—and making the best decisions we can based on the available information—in full recognition that being a leader in healthcare can mean having to put up with some unpleasant feedback. I think some folks in the field remain super concerned and super attentive to the decisions others are making on their behalf, so it’s important to keep things on an even keel.

Until next time, continue to stay safe—and keep rocking it!

Will it go ’round in circles? A couple more pieces of the COVID-19 pie

As I try to embrace brevity as the soul of wit (which is likely to be as close to Shakespearean as this space is ever likely to venture), I have just a couple of resources to share with you folks this week. I do hope this finds you settling in (at least somewhat) to the current reality and the “new” stressors have subsided a bit.

Clearly, there’s been a lot of discussion regarding the protection of healthcare workers, mostly as a function of providing essential personal protective equipment (and the struggles that folks have faced in procuring said PPE). What is somewhat sketchier at the moment it to how organizations/employers are going to be held accountable for worker protection in the aftermath of the pandemic condition. But you might be able to gain some sense of things by consulting our friends at the federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration. While the OSHA website does speak of “discretion” in enforcement activities when considering an employer’s “good faith” efforts, I think it will be of critical importance that we be able to speak to a risk assessment to determine where folks jobs/tasks fall on the exposure continuum. OSHA indicates a spread of low, medium, high, and very high as risk categories with the enjoinder “(u)ntil more is known about how COVID-19 spreads, OSHA recommends using a combination of standard precautions, contact precautions, airborne precautions, and eye protection (e.g., goggles, face shields) to protect healthcare workers with exposure to the virus.” They also encourage the use of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention as the primary source of current strategies, etc., so we can all work from the same source.

One of the other common threads of discussion relates to the disinfection of surfaces, etc., for which I would encourage you to check out the Environmental Protection Agency’s list of approved disinfectants (hopefully whatever your organization is using is on the list; not necessarily a deal-breaker if it isn’t, but there are always risks when one goes off-list). I keep reflecting on the reality that, in all likelihood, we won’t know what worked/didn’t work, etc., until this is long past it’s point of criticality, so it’s important to make sure that we can evidence a thoughtful process in identifying strategies. As of this writing (April 21), there does seem to be a growing unrest to get things back to normal, with some states opting to employ less restrictive strategies for distancing (in all its many permutations—who knew?). I am hopeful that we won’t be having this same discussion a month (or two months) from now if there is a resurgence, but it does seem inopportune to try and short-circuit a process before we have enough data to support easing up on things. I guess it all goes back to what they say about time—it will tell!

Stay safe!

I sit at my table and wage war on myself—and earn an OSHA citation!

While I have a sneaking suspicion that this Top 10 list doesn’t change a whole lot from year to year (other than position in the hierarchy), I thought it would be of interest to trot out which occupational safety considerations are manifesting themselves across industries. I can certainly see where any of these might crop up in healthcare.

And so, to the list:

10: Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment – Eye and Face Protection

9: Machine Guarding

8: Fall Protection – Training Requirements

7: Powered Industrial Trucks

6: Ladders

5: Respiratory Protection

4: Lockout/Tagout

3: Scaffolding

2: Hazard Communication

1: Fall Protection

Again, no big surprises, but I guess it does point out some areas for future consideration, mostly as a function of initial and ongoing safety education. These are the types of things, especially when dealing with contractors, that can result in a very uncomfortable situation if something goes sideways on your campus—even if it’s not your staff. Once the Big O gets through the door, it’s tough to contain their interest in all things safety.

Closing out this week, one of the questions that seems to be coming up with greater frequency during Joint Commission surveys relates to how your organization determines that the individual(s) tasked with doing your rated door inspections are knowledgeable/competent (we know from our intense scrutiny of NFPA 80 that these folks do not need to be certified; it is a handy way to demonstrate that an individual is knowledgeable, but you can certainly evaluate/validate competency in other ways). And pondering that equation made me a little more interested in the following news story than might normally have been the case (there isn’t a time when I wouldn’t have been interested, but this was an especially telling confluence). It seems that an individual has been accused of defrauding some VA hospitals by billing them for work that had not been performed; a little more detail can be found here. I know a lot of folks have struggled over the years with vendors who prefer to “come and go as they please,” which typically results in less control over the process, including timely notifications of discrepancies. I’m curious as to how this ends up when it makes its way through the courts, but I can see a time when those pesky surveyors might start to ask about how one knows that the service for which they have documentation actually occurred. Hopefully this case is all a big misunderstanding and there were no real gaps in oversight…

Eat, drink, and be safe: Some guidance on the care and feeding of staff

One of the more universal conditions I find is the whole issue of where staff can grab something to eat or drink in the midst of busy periods, particularly when staffing levels don’t necessarily dovetail with leaving the work space to go to the cafeteria, etc. And there’s always the specter of someone, somewhere having invoked the “You can’t eat there, it’s against TJC regulations” or “You can’t drink there, it’s against regulations” and so forth and so on. And what better strategy than to use a regulatory presence from outside the organization to be the heavy.

Many’s the time I’ve tried to convince folks that, from a regulatory perspective (with some fairly well-defined exceptions, like laboratories), there is nothing that approaches a general prohibition when it comes to the how, when, and where of eating and drinking in the workplace (and yes, I absolutely understand that prohibition is the easiest thing to “police,” but I think prohibitions also tend to “drive” more creative workarounds). And in the March 2019 edition of Perspectives, our friends in Chicago provide a couple of clarifications for folks, and if you think that there’s a risk assessment involved, then you would be correct.

So, the clarifications are two in number:

  • There are no TJC standards that specifically address where staff can have food or drink in the work areas.
  • You can identify safe spaces for food and drink as long as those locations  comply with the evaluation (read: risk assessment) of the space and your exposure control plan as far as risks of contamination from chemicals, blood, or body fluids, etc.

The guiding light in all of this, if you will, are the regulations provided by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, and while they have a lot to say about such things (Bloodborne Pathogens and Sanitation), a careful analysis should yield a means of designating some spaces. I have seen a lot of designated “hydration stations,” particularly in clinical areas, to help keep folks hydrated over the course of the working day, so clearly some folks are working towards providing some flexibility based on a risk assessment. This is a good thing both in terms of staff support, but also in not drawing a line in the sand that they don’t have to. Prohibitions can bring about some of your toughest compliance challenges, so if you can work with folks to build in some flexibility, it could mean fewer headaches during rounding activities.

Don’t bleed before you are wounded, and if you can avoid being wounded…

…so much the better!

Part of me is wondering what took them so long to get to this point in the conversation.

In their latest Quick Safety utterance, our friends in Chicago are advocating de-escalation as a “first-line response to potential violence and aggression in health care settings.”  I believe the last time we touched upon this general topic was back in the spring of 2017 and I was very much in agreement with the importance of “arming” frontline staff (point of care/point of service—it matters not) with a quiver of de-escalation techniques. As noted at the time, there are a lot of instances in which our customers are rather grumpier than not and being able to manage the grumpies early on in the “grumprocess” (see what I did there?!?) makes so much operational sense that it seems somewhat odd that we are still having this conversation. To that end, I think I’m going to have to start gathering data as I wander the highways and byways of these United States and see how much emphasis is being placed on de-escalation skills as a function of everyday customer service. From orientation to periodic refreshers, this one is too important to keep ignoring, but maybe we’re not—you tell me!

At any rate, the latest Quick Safety offers up a whole slate of techniques and methods for preparing staff to deal with aggressive behaviors; there is mention of Sentinel Event Alert 57 regarding violence and health workers, so I think there is every reason to think that (much as ligature risks have taken center stage in the survey process) how well we prepare folks to proactively deal with aggressive behaviors could bubble up over the next little while. It is a certainty that the incidence rate in healthcare has caught the eyes and ears of OSHA (and they merit a mention in the Quick Safety as well as CDC and CMS), and I think that, in the industry overall, there are improvements to be made (recognizing that some of this is the result of others abdicating responsibility for behavioral health and other marginalized populations, but, as parents seem to indicate frequently, nobody ever said it would be fair…or equitable…or reasonable…). I personally think (and have for a very long time, pretty much since I had operational responsibilities for security) that de-escalation skills are vital in any service environment, but who has the time to make it happen?

Please weigh in if you have experiences (positive or negative are fine by me) that you’d feel like sharing—and you can absolutely request anonymity, just reach out to the Gmail account (stevemacsafetyspace@gmail.com) and I will remove any identifying marks…

In security we trust, insecurity we fear: Are you up for a challenge?

Last week we started noodling on where things might go from a regulatory/accreditation perspective as the dust “settles” relative to the management of behavioral health patients, ligature risks, etc., as well as the continuing march on infection control targets, items that are certainly on the radar. But there’s one other item that I keep coming back to (in my mind’s eye): Getting our arms around issues relating to workplace violence. While I have no data to support it beyond a general impression based on conversations with various folks, I would venture to say that, if you look at it purely in terms of “room for improvement,” concerns relating to the management of workplace violence has got to be sitting pretty near the top of the “to do” list (I suspect it’s at the top of that list, but if you should happen to either have this one completely under control or there’s something that concerns you more, I’d love to hear about it).

I don’t think (and I’m certainly not in a position to dispute) the numbers are indicative of anything but a pervasive, tough-to-solve issue, particularly in the current healthcare environment. I hear stories about difficulties getting funding for technology solutions, additional staffing to maximize those technology solutions, etc. sometimes forcing us to be reactive as opposed to being able to develop a proactive response. But in looking at the OSHA website as a warmup to penning this particular entry into the Safety Space canon, I noticed that some updated materials have been posted on the OSHA website, including an executive summary for hospital leaders, some examples of best practices, and some information on how you might integrate workplace violence prevention into your organization’s “regular” compliance activities. The addition of these materials, perhaps as a subset of being helpful, tells me that there’s still a fair amount of consideration being given to the subject and we, as an industry, might be well-served to give these materials a look-see. Share that executive summary with your organization’s leaders if you have not already done so; start talking with your organizational risk management and occupational health folks to start working towards elevating this to an organizational priority before the events of the day force you to do so (or to explain to your boss why you didn’t). I’ve worked in healthcare long enough to remember those halcyon days when hospitals were not the hotbed of safety and security risks they are today—until somebody invents a working time machine, we’re not going back there, so we have to focus on future improvement.

And, interestingly enough, I’m not the only one thinking about this stuff; I would encourage you to check out Tim Richards’ blog post. He provides some good food for discussion and perhaps even some early budget planning. There’s a lot of technology out there, some of it (I daresay) could be very useful in protecting folks in a more effective way. This one’s not going away any time soon, and to be honest, I can see this becoming something of a survey focus in the not-too-distant future.

The other shoe is starting to fall: Moving beyond ligature risks!

Well, it does seem like there are a couple of compliance themes asserting themselves in 2018, concerns related to emergency management (relatively simple in terms of execution and sustainability) and concerns relating to the management of behavioral health patients and the management of workplace violence (relatively complicated in terms of execution and sustainability). I think we can say with some degree of certainty that there are some commonalities relative to the latter two (beyond being complicated to work through) as well as some crossover. And while I wish that I had a ready solution for all of this, if I have learned nothing else over the last 39+ years, it is that there are no panaceas when it comes to any of this stuff. And with so many different regulatory perspectives that can come into play, is it enough to do the best you can under the circumstances? As usual, the answer to that question (at least for the moment) is “probably not.”

In last week’s Hospital Safety Insider, there was a news item regarding OSHA citations for a behavioral health facility in Florida for which inadequate provisions had been made relative to protecting staff from workplace violence. As near as I can make out from the story, the violence was being perpetrated mostly in patient encounters and revolved around “failing to institute controls to prevent patients from verbal and physical threats of assault, including punches, kicks, and bites; and from using objects as weapons.” Now, in scanning that quote (from information released by the Department of Labor), it does seem rather daunting in terms of “preventing” patients from engaging in the listed activities. This is one of those really clear division between federal jurisdictions—OSHA is driving the prevention of patients from engaging in verbal and physical threats while CMS is (more or less) driving a limited approach to what I euphemistically refer to as the “laying on of hands” in the management of patients. That said, I think it’s worth your while to take a look at the specific correction action plan elements included in the DOL release—it may have the makings of a reasonable gap analysis if you have inpatient behavioral health in your facility. It appears that the entity providing some level of management at the cited facility was also cited at another facility back in 2016 for similar issues, so it may be that some of this is recurrent in theme, but I think it probably makes sense to take a look at the details to see if your place has any of the identified vulnerabilities.

Wanting to end this week’s installment on an upbeat note, as well as providing fodder for your summer reading list, I was recently listening to the id10t podcast and happened upon an interview with astronaut Leland Melvin, who navigated a number of personal and profession barriers to become the first person to play in the NFL and go into space as an astronaut. His book, Chasing Space, is a fun and thought-provoking read and really captures the essence of what we, as safety professionals, often face in terms of barrier management. I would encourage you to check out the book as well as the interview. As a side note, I’m not sure if you folks would all be familiar with Chris Hardwick and his Nerdist empire, but I think he’s become a most winning and empathetic interviewer, and since I’ve never been afraid to embrace my inner (and outer) nerd, I will leave you with that recommendation (and please, if you folks have stuff that you’re reading and think would be worth sharing with our little safety community, please do—fiction, non-fiction—a good read is a good read!)

What it is ain’t exactly clear: Hazardous materials management and the SAFER matrix

I was recently asked to ponder the (relative—all things are relative) preponderance of findings under the Hazardous Materials and Wastes Management standard (EC.02.02.01 for those of you keeping track). For me, the most interesting part of the question was the information that (as was apparently revealed at the Joint Commission Executive Briefings sessions last fall) findings under EC.02.02.01 frequently found their way to the part of the SAFER matrix indicating a greater likelihood of causing harm (the metric being low, moderate, and high likelihood of harm) than some of the other RFIs being generated (EC.02.06.01, particularly as a function of survey issues with ligature risks, also generates those upper harm-level likelihood survey results). Once upon a time, eyewash station questions were among the most frequently asked (and responded to in this space), so it’s almost like replaying a classic

Generally speaking, the findings that they’ve earmarked as being more likely to cause harm are the ones relating to eyewash stations (the most common being the surveyors over-interpreting where one “has” to have an eyewash station the remainder pretty much fall under the maintenance of eyewashes—either there’s a missing inspection, access to the eyewash station is obstructed during the survey, or there is clearly something wrong with the eyewash—usually the protective caps are missing or the water flow is rather anemic in its trajectory). All of those scenarios have the “potential” for being serious; if someone needs an eyewash and the thing doesn’t work properly or it’s been contaminated, etc., someone could definitely be harmed. But (and it is an extraordinarily big “but”) it’s only when you have an exposure to a caustic or corrosive chemical, which loops us back to the over-interpretation. OSHA only requires emergency eyewash equipment when there is a risk of occupational exposure to a corrosive chemical (the ANSI standard goes a bit further by indicating eyewash equipment should be available for caustic chemicals as well as corrosives). A lot of the findings I’ve seen have been generated by the clinical surveyors, who are frequently in the company of hospital staff that aren’t really clear on what the requirements are (you could make the case that they should, if only from a Hazard Communications standard standpoint, but we’ll set that aside for the moment), so when the clinical surveyor says “you need an eyewash station here” and writes it up, the safety folks frequently don’t find out until the closeout (and sometimes don’t find out until the survey report is received). The “problem” that can come to the fore is that the clinical folks don’t perceive the eyewash finding as “theirs” because it’s not a clinical finding, so they really don’t get too stressed about it. So, the surveyor may ask to see the SDS for a product in use and if the SDS indicates that the first aid for eye exposure is a 15- or 20-minute flush with water, then they equate that with an eyewash station, which in a number of instances, is not (again, strictly speaking from a regulatory standpoint) “required.” Sometimes you can make a case for a post-survey clarification, but successful clarifications are becoming increasingly rare, so you need to have a process in place to make your case/defense during the survey.

The other “batch” of findings for this standard tend relate to the labeling of secondary containers (usually the containers that are used to transport soiled instruments); again, in terms of actual risk, these conditions are not particularly “scary,” but you can’t completely negate the potential, so (again) the harm level can be up-sold (so to speak).

In terms of survey prep, you have to have a complete working knowledge of what corrosive chemicals are in use in the organization and where those chemicals are being used (I would be inclined to include caustic chemicals as well); the subset of that is to evaluate those products to see if there are safer (i.e., not corrosive or caustic) alternatives to be used. The classic finding revolves around the use of chemical sprays to “soak” instruments awaiting disinfection and sterilization—if you don’t soak them, then the bioburden dries and it’s a pain to be sure it’s all removed, etc.; generally, some sort of enzymatic spray product is used—but not all of them are corrosive and require an eyewash station. Then once you know where you have corrosives/caustics, you need to make sure you have properly accessible eyewash equipment (generally within 10 seconds of unimpeded travel time from the area of exposure risk to the eyewash) and then you need to make sure that staff understand what products they have and why an eyewash is not required (strictly speaking, there really aren’t that many places in a hospital for which an eyewash station would be required) if that is the case—or at least make sure that they will reach out to the safety folks if a question should come up during survey. Every once in a while there’s a truly legit finding (usually because some product found its way someplace where it didn’t belong), but more often than not, it’s not necessary.

You also have to be absolutely relentless when it comes to the labeling of secondary containers; if there’s something of a biohazard nature and you put it in a container, then that container must be properly identified as a biohazard; if you put a chemical in a spray bottle, bucket, or other container, then there needs to be a label (there are exceptions, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is best managed as an absolute). Anything that is not in its original container has to be labeled, regardless of what the container is, the reason for doing it, etc. The hazard nature of the contents must be clear to anyone and everyone that might encounter the container.

At the end of the day (as cliché an expression as that might be), it is the responsibility of each organization to know what’s going on and to make sure that the folks at the point of care/point of service have a clear understanding of what risks they are likely to encounter and how the organization provides for their safety in encountering those risks. We are not in the habit of putting people in harm’s way, but if folks don’t understand the risks and (perhaps most importantly) understand the protective measures in place, the risk of survey finding is really the least of your worries.

Is you is or is you ain’t a required policy?

Yet another mixed bag this week, mostly from the mailbag, but perhaps some other bags will enter into the conversation. We shall see, we shall see.

First up, we have the announcement of a new Joint Commission portal that deals with resources for preventing workplace violence. The portal includes some real-world examples, some of the information coming from hospitals with whom I have done work in the past (both coasts are covered). There is also invocation of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (lots of links this week). I know that everyone out there in the listening audience is working very diligently towards minimizing workplace violence risks and perhaps there’s some information of value to be had. If you should happen to uncover something particularly compelling as you wander over to the Workplace Violence Portal, please share it with the group. Bullying behavior is a real culture disruptor and the more we can share ideas that help to manage all the various disruptors, we’ll definitely be in a better place.

And speaking of a better place, I did want to bring to your attention some findings that have been cropping up during Joint Commission surveys of late. The findings relate to being able to demonstrate that you have documented a risk assessment of the areas in which you manage behavioral health patients; particularly those areas of your ED that are perhaps not as absolutely safe as they might otherwise be, in order to have sufficient flexibility to use those rooms for “other” patients. Unless you have a pretty significant volume of behavioral health patients, it’s probably going to be tough to designate and “safe” rooms to be used for behavioral health patients only, so in all likelihood you’re going to have to deal with some level of risk. I suppose it would be appropriate at this juncture to point out that it is nigh on impossible to provide an absolutely risk-free environment; the reality of the situation is that for the management of individuals intent on hurting themselves, the “safety” of the environment on its own is not enough. Just as with any risk, we work to reduce the risk to the extent possible and work to manage what risks remain. That said, if you have not documented an assessment of the physical environment in the areas in which you manage behavioral health patients, it is probably a worthwhile activity to have in your back pocket. I think an excellent starting point would be to check out the most recent edition of the Design Guide for the Built Environment of Behavioral Health Facilities, which is available from the Facilities Guidelines Institute. There’s a ton of information about products, strategies, etc. for managing this at-risk patient population. And please keep in mind that, as you go through the process, you may very well uncover some risks for which you feel that some level of intervention is indicated (this is not a static patient population—they change, you may need to change your environment to keep pace), in which case it is very important to let the clinical folks know that you’ve identified an opportunity and then brainstorm with them to determine how to manage the identified risk(s) until such time as corrective measures can be taken. Staff being able to speak to the proactive management of identified risks is a very powerful strategy for keeping everybody safe. So please keep that in mind, particularly if you haven’t formally looked at this in a bit.

As a closing thought for the week, I know there are a number of folks (could be lots) who purchased those customizable EOC manuals back in the day and ever since have been managing like a billion policies, which, quite frankly, tends to be an enormous pain in the posterior. I’m not entirely certain where all these policies came from, but I can tell you that the list of policies that you are required to have is actually fairly limited:

  • Hazard Communications Plan (OSHA)
  • Bloodborne Pathogens Exposure Control Plan (OSHA)
  • Respiratory Protection Program (OSHA)
  • Emergency Operations Plan (CMS & Accreditation Organizations)
  • Interim Life Safety Measures Policy (CMS & Accreditation Organizations)
  • Radiation Protection Program (State)
  • Safety Management Plan (Accreditation Organizations)
  • Security Management Plan (Accreditation Organizations)
  • Hazardous Materials & Waste Management Plan (Accreditation Organizations)
  • Fire Safety Management Plan (Accreditation Organizations)
  • Medical Equipment Management Plan (Accreditation Organizations)
  • Utility Systems Management Plan (Accreditation Organizations)
  • Security Incident Procedure (Accreditation Organizations)
  • Smoking Policy (Accreditation Organizations)
  • Utility Disruption Response Procedure (Accreditation Organizations)

Now I will freely admit that I kind of stretched things a little bit (you could, for example, make the case that CMS does not specifically require an ILSM policy; you could also make the case that it is past time for the management plans to go the way of <insert defunct thing here> at the very least leaving it up to the individual organizations to determine how useful the management plans might be in real life…). At any rate, there is no requirement to have any policies, etc., beyond the list here (unless, of course, I have left one out). So, no policy for changing a light bulb (regardless of whether it wants to change) or policy for writing policies. You’ll want to have guidelines and procedures, but please don’t fall into the policy “trap”: Keep it simple, smarty!