RSSAll Entries Tagged With: "The Joint Commission"

Wagging the dog: Can Accreditation Organizations influence each other?

In last week’s issue of HCPro’s Accreditation Insider, there was an item regarding the decision of the folks at the Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (HFAP) to update their Infection Control standards for acute care hospitals, with the intent of alignment with CMS expectations (you can find the article here) We’ve certainly covered the concerns relative to Legionella and the management of risks associated with aerosolizing water systems and this may only be a move to catch up on ground already covered by other accreditation organizations (our friends in Chicago already require the minimization of pathogenic biological agents in cooling towers, domestic hot- and cold-water systems, and other aerosolizing water systems), but I’m thinking it might also be something of a “tell” as to where survey focus might be drifting as we embark upon the second half of 2018. Certainly, waterborne pathogens are of critical importance to manage as a function of patient vulnerability (ideally, we want folks to get better during their hospital stays), so it makes perfect sense for this to be on the radar to some degree. At this point, the memorandum from CMS outlining their concerns has been with us for about a year, with an immediate effective date, so hopefully you are well-entrenched in managing those water systems. If this one is still on your to-do list, I think it’s probably advisable to making it a priority to get it to your “to-done” list. But you should definitely check out the latest “clarification” from CMS. While the memo indicates that this does not impose any new expectations or requirements, it does make it a little clearer as to what surveyors are supposed to be checking.

As I think Mr. Gershwin once opined about summer and the easiness of living, it would be nice to be able to set a spell and take one’s shoes off, but vigilance is always the order of the day.

On a somewhat lighter note, I just finished reading Our Towns – A 100,000 Mile Journey Into The Heart of America, which outlines the efforts of a number of (mostly smallish) municipalities across the United States in positioning themselves for a positive future (positive positioning—I kind of like that). The focus is mostly on the socioeconomics of different parts of the country, with a focus on how diversity can be employed in bettering a community (that’s probably a little ham-handed as a descriptor, but you can find an excerpt here if you like). As my work allows me to travel to a lot of places, while I haven’t been to a lot of the same destinations as the Fallows, I do recognize a lot of the stories and a lot of the challenges facing folks lately (and I think you might, too). I would describe the tone of the book as hopeful, so if you’re looking for something to read at beach/pond/summer cottage, etc., you might consider giving Our Towns a shot.

 

A quiet week in Lake Forgoneconclusion: Safety Shorts and Sandals!

But hopefully no open-toed sandals—maybe steel toed sandals…

Just a couple of quick items as we head out of the Independence Day holiday and into the heat of the summah (and so far, scorching has been the primary directive up here in the Northeast—hope it’s cooler where you are, but I also hope it didn’t snow where you are either…but I guess if you were in Labrador last week, all bets are off).

When last week’s musings on the ligature risk stuff in the July Perspectives went to press (or when I finished my scribbling), the new materials had not yet made their way to TJC’s Frequently Asked Questions page, though I thought that they might—and that’s exactly what has happened. To the tune of 17 new FAQs for hospitals, so if you haven’t yet laid eyes on the July Perspectives, head on over to the FAQ page and immerse yourself in the bounty (that’s a somewhat weird turn of phrase, but I’m going to stick with it).

While you’re there, you should definitely poke around at some of the other stuff on the FAQ page. There are lots and lots of recommendations for risk assessment types of activities, so if you’re looking for some risk minimization opportunities, you might find some useful thoughts. Of particular note in this regard is the practical application of safety practices in those organizational spaces for which your oversight is somewhat more intermittent; I’m thinking offsite physician practices or medical office buildings and similar care locations. Depending on where you are and where they are, it might not be quite so easy to keep a really close eye on what they’re doing. And while I tend to favor scheduling surveillance rounds with folks in general, I also know that if you don’t stop by from time to time, you might not catch any lurking opportunities (and they do tend to be lurksome when they know you’re coming for a visit). In a lot of the survey results I’ve seen over the last 18 months or so, there’s still a pretty good chunk of survey findings generated during the ambulatory care part of the survey process. Safety “lives” at the point of care/service, wherever that may be—definitely more ground to cover now that in the past. At any rate, I think you could use the FAQ stuff as a jumping off point to increase the safety awareness of folks throughout—and you can do that independently of anyone’s vacation schedule (including your own).

Hope you and yours had a most festive 4th!

Will it go ’round in circles? More managing the physical environment relative to suicide risk!

Hopefully you have already gotten a chance to look through the July 2018 issue of Perspectives for the latest reveals on how (at least one accrediting body) is working through the issues relating to ensuring each organization has a safe environment for the management of behavioral health patients. There is a fair amount of content (this comes to us in the form of FAQs—presumably these will find their way to the official FAQ page, if they have not yet done so) and splits up into three general categories: inpatient psych units, emergency departments (ED), and miscellaneous. (I’m going to guess that the FAQs relative to managing at risk patients in acute care settings is going to merit their own FAQ edition, so I guess we’ll have to stay tuned.)

I don’t know that I would term anything to be particularly surprising (lots of emphasis on the various and sundry risk assessment processes that comprise an integrated approach to such things), though they do make some efforts to describe/define, going so far as to indicate that only patients with “serious” suicidal ideation (those with a plan and intent) need to be placed under “demonstrably reliable monitoring” (aka 1:1 monitoring), with the further caveat that the monitoring be linked to immediate intervention, which means something in terms of competency, education, experience, etc. Clearly (and I completely agree with this) there is an expectation relative to who does the monitoring that probably doesn’t include a rookie security officer or other newbie. I personally have advocated for a very long time the use of folks who are specifically prepared for these types of activities, so maybe that idea is going to approach something of a standard. We shall wait and see.

Another interesting item is the indication that if you (and, yes, I mean you!) designate a room in your ED as a “safe room,” then the expectation (at least for TJC) is that room (or rooms if there are more than one) would be ligature resistant. Makes sense, but I think it does represent something of a caution for those of you looking at designating safe rooms in your EDs (and perhaps extending to the inpatient side of things—probably in the next installment). I guess the other interesting thing (and this probably doesn’t apply to all) relates to freestanding EDs: the recommendations (you can check out the November 2017 issue of Perspectives for the particulars if you’ve not yet done so) for EDs would apply. I understand that this is rather a big deal in general and is very close to endlessly complex in the practical application of the management of risks. I think this is one “ball” we’re going to be keeping an eye on for the next little while.

To end this week in the truth is stranger than almost anything category, I was looking through an email (devoted to all things culinary) and I noted a headline: “We’re All Using Clorox Wipes Wrong, Apparently” and I said to myself, “Dwell times have entered the vernacular of the American household” (I’m not saying it’s anything more than a toehold, but still) and darned if I wasn’t pretty much spot on. The other “revelation” is the absence of bleach in some of the kitchen wipe products identified in the article (I think I knew that, but I can’t really say when I might have acquired said knowledge). There’s also some information on what surfaces should be cleaned with certain kitchen wipes, etc. At any rate, I thought it worth sharing, at least as an example of how our work can span all demographics.

Happy Independence Day to all!

With a purposeful grimace and a terrible sound: Even more emergency management!

As much as I keep promising myself that I’ll poke at something more varied, the news of the day keeps turning back in the direction of emergency preparedness, in this case, just a little bit more on the subject of continuity of operations planning (COOP).

Late last week, our friends in Chicago proffered the latest (#41) in their series of Quick Safety (QS) tips, which focuses on elements of preparedness relating to COOPs (nobody here but us chickens). Within the QS tip (small pun intended), our Chicagoan overlords indicate that “continuity of operations planning has emerged as one of the issues that…need to address better in order to be more resilient during and after the occurrence of disasters and emergencies.” The QS also indicates a couple of best practice focus areas for COOPs:

  • Continuity of facilities and communications to support organizational functions.
  • A succession plan that lists who replaces the key leader(s) during an emergency if the leader is not available to carry out his or her duties.
  • A delegation of authority plan that describes the decisions and policies that can be implemented by authorized successors.

Now, I will freely admit that I always thought that this could be accomplished by adopting a scalable incident command structure, with appropriate monitoring of critical functions, inclusive of contact information for folks, etc. And, to be honest, I’m not really sure that having to re-jigger what you already have into something that’s easy for surveyors to discern at the 30,000-foot survey level is going to make each organization better prepared. I do know that folks have been cited for not having COOPs, particularly as a function of succession planning and delegation of authority (again, a properly structured HICS should get you most of the way there). So, I guess my advice for today is to figure out what pieces of your current EOP represent the COOP requirements and highlight them within the document (I really, really, really don’t want you to have to extract that stuff and create a standalone COOP, but if that helps you present the materials, then I guess that’s what you’d have to do…but I really don’t like that we’ve gotten to this point). At any rate, the QS has lots of info, some of it potentially useful, so please check it out here.

As a closing thought: I know folks are working really diligently towards getting an active shooter drill on the books, with varying degrees of progress. As I was perusing various media offerings, I saw an article outlining the potential downsides of active shooter-type drills. While the piece is aimed at the school environment, I think it’s kind of an interesting perspective as it relates to the practical impact of planning and conducting these types of exercises. It’s a pretty quick read and may generate some good discussion in your “house.”

And you may find yourself in another part of the survey process (more HazMat fun)

And you may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?

As is sometimes the case, I like to respond to questions from the “studio” audience and last week I received a question from the field that I think is worth a few inches of verbiage here. The question, as luck would have it, relates to the ascendancy of EC.02.02.01 (with 63% of the hospitals being surveyed taking hits), the management of hazardous materials and wastes.

While it may seem a little incongruous, with a side order of daunting, I think that the primary reason for the ascendance of EC.02.02.01 is that there are any number of things that can generate findings, particularly from the clinical surveyors (not that the LS surveyor couldn’t find stuff, but from what I’ve seen in recent survey reports, a lot of the HazMat findings are being generated during “regular” tracers). So, in no particular order:

  • emergency eyewash equipment (availability/accessibility/documentation of testing & maintenance)
  • availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in accordance with product Safety Data Sheets (SDS)
  • management of hazardous energy sources, particularly as it relates to managing lead PPE;
  • labeling of secondary containers
  • management of hazardous gases and vapors (particularly as a function of ventilation, but also monitoring if you happen to have folks still using glutaraldehyde and/or cadmium-based products)
  • ensuring appropriate staff education is in place, particularly Department of Transportation education for staff signing manifests
  • with the odd issue relating to staff being able to competently access SDS

We’ve certainly spent our fair share of time talking about eyewash equipment (surveyors are as prone to over-interpretation as anyone, so you better have a clearly articulated risk assessment in your back pocket), and, interestingly enough, on May 31 (my birthday!), the folks at HCPro are hosting a webinar on the evergreen topic of eyewash stations, so you may want to give that look-see (listen-hear?).

I think the stuff surveyors are kicking folks on is pretty straightforward. I mean, just think about unlabeled or inappropriately labeled secondary containers—what’s the likelihood that you’ve got one out there somewhere in your organization? An unlabeled spray bottle; a biohazard container for which the label was washed off—lots of opportunities for the process to come up short.

At any rate, the list above is representative of what I’ve seen (in consulting practice and in actual survey reports). Anybody have any other potential findings that they’ve seen?

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…

Cylindrical musings and nudging as a compliance strategy

Howdy, folks. After surviving the battering of this past weekend’s tumultuous weather in the Northeast (I got to experience it twice—once in Indiana and again back home), I’m going to be (relatively) brief for this week’s missive.

First up, hopefully most of you are familiar with the TED Talks concept (all the info you need about that you can find here) and NPR has a weekly program that kind of crystallizes some of the TED offerings in their TED Radio Hour. This past weekend (no TV, so we had to huddle around the radio, just like in olden times), the program revolved around the use of gentle pushes or nudges to change behaviors (you can hear that broadcast here). As safety professionals, I think we are all acquainted with the various attempts to get folks to do our bidding when it comes to safe practice (that sounds a little authoritarian, but it’s kinda what we’re up against) and I thought the entire program really gave me some food for thought in how we might come at compliance from a slightly different perspective. I thought some of the ideas were fascinating and definitely worth sharing, so if you have a spare 55 minutes or so (the webpage above does break it out into the individual sections of the broadcast—I think it’s all good, but whatever description seems most interesting to you would be a good starting point), you might give it a whirl…

I also want to bring you some hopeful news on the cylinder storage segregation front; when this whole focus started, quite a few folks were cited for storing non-full (empty or partial) cylinders in the same location as full cylinders. I don’t know when The Joint Commission posted the updated FAQ on cylinder storage, but, and I quote, “Full and partially full cylinders are permitted to be stored together, unless the organization’s policy requires further segregation.” I know this whole thing was the bane of a lot of folks’ existence, particularly after we had to work so diligently to get folks to secure the cylinders properly, only to have this little paradigm shift towards the edge of darkness. I believe that this will make things somewhat simpler in the execution (make sure your policy reflects the allowance for full and partials to be stored together—they’ll be looking to review that policy).

As a final, non-safety note, I just flew cross-country and was able to watch Gary Oldman’s performance as Winston Churchill in Darkest Hour. I’ve always been something of a history buff, with World War II as a central theme and must tell you that I thought it was a really great performance and a fine movie (or is it a film?). It really points out the power of consensus and the use of the spoken word to galvanize folks (which kind of ties back to the nudging—though Sir Winston’s nudge packed a lot of wallop). At any rate, I thought it was very well done (no surprise about the Best Actor Oscar) and probably my favorite since Lincoln (the movie, not the car or President…though Lincoln in the Bardo was a very interesting book…).

There’s no such thing as someone else’s code: Infection control and the environment (again…)

Periodically, I field questions from folks that require a little bit (well, perhaps sometimes more than a little) of conjecture. Recently, I received a question regarding the requirements in ASHRAE 170-2008 regarding appropriate pressure relationships in emergency department and radiology waiting rooms (ASHRAE 170-2008 says those areas would be under negative pressure, with the caveat that the requirement applies only to “waiting rooms programmed to hold patients awaiting chest x-rays for diagnosis of respiratory disease”).

Right now, that particular question is kind of the elephant in the room from a regulatory perspective; there is every indication that The Joint Commission/CMS are working their way through ASHRAE 170-2008 and have yet to make landfall on this particular requirement—as far as I know—feel free to disabuse me of that notion. The intent of the requirement (as I interpret it) is to have some fundamental protections in place to ensure that an isolated respiratory contagion does not have the capacity of becoming a legitimate outbreak because of inadequate ventilation. Now, you could certainly use the annual infection control program risk assessment to identify whether your waiting rooms are “programmed to hold patients awaiting chest x-rays for diagnosis of respiratory disease” based on the respiratory disease data from the local community (and you might be able to obtain data from a larger geographic area, which one might consider a “buffer zone”).

Best case scenario results in you being able to take this completely off the table from a risk standpoint, next best would be that you introduce protocols for respiratory patients that remove them from the general waiting rooms (depending on the potential numbers, you may not have the space for it), worst case being that you have to modify the current environment to provide appropriate levels of protection. The notation for this requirement does provide some relief for folks with a recirculating air system in these areas, which allows for HEPA filters to be used instead of exhausting the air from these spaces to the outdoors, providing the return air passes through the HEPA filters before it introduced into any other spaces.

Knowing what I do about some of the ventilation challenges folks have, I suspect that it may make more sense to pursue the HEPA filtration setup than it would be to try to bring each of the spaces under negative pressure, but (going out on a limb here) that might be a question best answered by a group of knowledgeable folks (including an individual of the mechanical engineering persuasion) as a function of the (wait for it…) risk assessment process.

Ultimately, it comes down to what the Authority Having Jurisdiction chooses to enforce; that said, it might be worth having someone work through your state channels or by putting the question to the Standards Interpretation Group at Joint Commission (I suspect that their response would not be not particularly instructive beyond the usual “do a risk assessment” strategy, but there is a new person running the Engineering group at TJC, so perhaps something a little more helpful might be forthcoming). At any rate, as noted above, I’ve not heard of this being cited, but I also know that if there’s an outbreak tied to inadequate ventilation somewhere, this could become a hot topic pretty quickly (probably not as hot as ligature risks at the moment, but you never know…).

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.

 

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.