RSSAll Entries Tagged With: "The Joint Commission"

Time to bust a cap in your…eyewash station?!?

Howdy folks! A couple of quick items to warm the cockles of your heart as winter starts to make its arrival a little more obvious/foreboding (at least up here in the land of the New English) as we celebrate that most autumnal of days, All Hallows Eve (I’m writing this on All Hallows Eve Eve)…

The first item relates to some general safety considerations, mostly as a function of ensuring that the folks who rely on emergency equipment to work when there is an emergency are sufficiently prepared to ensure that happens. It seems that lately (though this is probably no more true than it usually is, but perhaps more noticeable of late) I’ve been running into a lot of emergency eyewash stations for which the protective caps are not in place. Now I know this is partially the result of too many eyewash stations in too many locations that don’t really need to have them (the reasoning behind the desire for eyewash stations seems to lean towards blood and body fluid splashes, for which we all know there is no specific requirement). At any rate, my concern is that, without the protective caps, the eyewash stations are capable of making the situation worse if someone flushes some sort of contaminant into their eyes because stuff got spilled/splashed/etc. on the “nekkid” eyewash stations. The same thing applies to making sure the caps are in place for the nozzles of the kitchen fire suppression system (nekkid nozzles—could be a band name!—can very quickly get gunked up with grease). We only need these things in the event of an emergency, but we need them to work correctly right away, not after someone wipes them off, etc. So, please remind the folks at point of care/point of service/point of culinary marvels to make sure those caps are in place at all times.

The other item relates to the recent changes in the fire safety management performance element that deals with your fire response plan. Please take a moment to review the response plan education process to ensure that you are capturing cooperation with firefighting authorities when (periodically) instructing staff and licensed independent practitioners. One of the ages-old survey techniques is to focus not so much on the time-honored compliance elements, but rather to poke around at what is new to the party, like cooperation with firefighting authorities (or 1135 waiver processes or continuity of operations plans or, I daresay, ligature risk assessments). It would seem that one of the primary directives of the survey process is to generate findings, so what better way to do that than to “pick” on the latest and (maybe not so) greatest.

Have a safe reorientation of the clocks!

Shine on you crazy fire response plan!

On the things I’ve been doing over the past couple of weeks has been reading through the EC/LS/EM standards and performance elements to see what little pesky items may have shown up since the last time I did a really thorough review. My primary intent is to see if I can find any “Easter eggs” that might provide fodder for findings because of a combination of specificity and curiosity. At any rate, while looking through the fire safety portion of the manual, I noticed a performance element that speaks to the availability of a written copy of your fire response plan. That makes sense to me; you can never completely rely on electronic access (it is very reliable, but a hard-copy backup seems reasonable). The odd component of the performance element is the specificity of the location for the fire response plan to be available—“readily available with the telephone operator or security.”

Now, I know that most folks can pull off that combo as an either/or, but there are smaller, rural facilities that may not have that capacity (I think my personal backup would be the nursing supervisor), so it makes me wonder what the survey risks are for those folks who don’t have 24/7 switchboard or security coverage. At the end of the day, I would think that you could do a risk assessment (what, another one!?!?!?) and pass it through your EC Committee (that kind of makes the Committee sound like some sort of sieve or colander) and then if the topic comes up during survey, you can push back if you happen to encounter a literalist surveyor (insert comment about the likelihood of that occurring). As there is no specific requirement to have 24/7 telephone operator or security presence (is it useful from an operational standpoint to do so, absolutely—but nowhere is it specifically required), I think that this should be an effective means of ensuring you stay out of the hot waters of survey. For me, “readily available” is the important piece of this, not so much how you make it happen.

At any rate, this may be much ado about nothing (a concept of which I am no stranger), but it was just one of those curious requirements that struck me enough to blather on for a bit.

As a closing note, a quick shout-out to the folks in the areas hit by various and sundry weather-related emergencies the past little while. I hope that things are moving quickly back to normal and kudos for keeping things going during very trying times. Over the years, I’ve worked with a number of folks down in that area and I have always been impressed with the level of preparedness. I would wish that you didn’t have to be tested so dramatically, but I am confident that you all (or all y’all, as the case may be) were able to weather the weather in appropriate fashion.

Everybody here comes from somewhere: Leveling the post-survey field

Well, if the numbers published in the September Perspectives are any indication, a lot of folks are going to be working through the post-survey Evidence of Standards Compliance process, so I thought I would take a few moments to let you know what has changed since the last time (if ever—perhaps your last survey was a clean one) you may have embarked upon the process.

So, what used to be a (relatively) simple accounting of Who (is ultimately responsible for the corrective action), What (actions were taken to correct the findings), When (each of the applicable actions were taken), and How (compliance is going to be sustained) has now morphed into a somewhat more involved:

  • Assigning Accountability (for corrective actions and sustained compliance)
  • Assigning Accountability – Leadership Involvement (this is for those especially painful findings in the dark orange and red boxes in the SAFER matrix – again, corrective actions and sustained compliance)
  • Correcting the Non-Compliance – Preventive Analysis (again, this is for those big-ticket findings – the expectation is that there will be analysis of the findings/conditions cited to ensure that the underlying causative factors were addressed along with the correction of the findings)
  • Correcting the Non-Compliance (basically, this mashes together the What and When from the old regimen)
  • And last, but by no means least, Ensuring Sustained Compliance

This last bit is a multifocal outline of how ongoing compliance will be monitored, how often the monitoring activities will occur (don’t over-promise on those frequencies, boys and girls; keep it real and operationally possible), what data is going to be collected from the monitoring process, and, to whom and how often, that data is going to be reported.

Now, I “get” the whole sustaining correction “thing,” but I’ve worked in healthcare long enough to recognize that, while our goal may be perfection in all things, perfection tends not to exist within our various spheres of influence. And I know lots of folks feel rather more inadequate than not when they look at the list of findings at the end of survey (really, any survey—internal, external—there’s always lots to find), which I don’t think brings a ton of value to the process. Gee thanks, Mr. Surveyor, for pointing out that one sprinkler head with dust on it; gee thanks, Ms. Surveyor, for pointing out that missing eyewash check. I believe and take very seriously our charge to ensure that we are facilitating an appropriate physical environment for care, treatment, and services to be provided to patients in the safest possible manner. If I recall, the standards-based expectation refers to minimize or eliminate, and I can’t help thinking that minimization (which clearly doesn’t equal elimination).

Ah, I guess that’s just getting a little too whiny, but I think you see what I’m saying. At any rate, be prepared to provide a more in-depth accounting of the post-survey process than has been the case in the past.

The other piece of the post-survey picture is the correction of those Life Safety Code® deficiencies or ligature risk items that cannot be corrected within 60 days; the TJC portal for each organization, inclusive of the Statement of Conditions section, has a lot of information/instruction regarding how those processes unfold after the survey. While I know you can’t submit anything until you’ve been well and truly cited for it during survey, I think it would be a really good thing to hop on the old extranet site and check out what questions you need to consider, etc., if you have to engage a long-term corrective action or two. While in some ways it is not as daunting as it first seems, there is an expectation for a very (and I do mean very, very) thorough accounting of the corrective actions, timelines, etc., and I think it a far better strategy to at least eyeball the stuff (while familiarity is said to breed contempt, it also breeds understanding) before you’re embroiled in the survey process for real.

Pay a great deal of attention to the man behind the curtain: More ligature survey stuff!

This week’s installment is rather brief and (at least for the moment) is germane only to those folks with inpatient behavioral health units. During a recent TJC survey of a behavioral health hospital, I was able to catch a glimpse into the intentions of the information revealed last November (holy moly, it’s almost been a year!). I have to admit that the “cadence” of this particular guidance was a little confusing to me at the time, but now I “get” it.

In discussing the recommendations regarding nursing stations (nursing stations with an unobstructed view so that a patient attempt at self-harm at the nursing station would be easily seen and interrupted), the article in Perspectives goes on to indicate that areas behind self-closing/self-locking doors do not need to be ligature-resistant. The consideration that I want to share with you is that a self-closing/self-locking door is not the same as a door that is always locked (maybe you figured that out as a proactive stance, but I always considered control over locked spaces to be sufficiently reliable, but it would seem not to be the case). At any rate, if you take the guidance at its word, if you have a space on your behavioral health unit that has ligature risks contained therein, then you best have doors that self-close and lock. You may have a lot of doors that secure ligature-present spaces that do not self-close and lock; if that’s the case, you may want to reach out to the Standards Interpretation Group for official feedback on this. All I can tell you is that it’s been cited in at least one recent survey and it does reflect the content shared last November (I think it would have been my inclination to separate the nursing station concept from the “other” areas for the sake of clarity, but I can see where things “fall” now that it’s come up during a survey), so it’s definitely worth some consideration in your “house.”

I’ve been there, I know the way: More Executive Briefings goodness

You’ve probably seen a smattering of stuff related to the (still ongoing as I write this) rollout of this year’s edition of Joint Commission Executive Briefings. As near as I can tell, during the survey period of June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018, there were about 27 hospitals that did not “experience” a finding in the Environment of Care (EC) chapter (98% of hospitals surveyed got an EC finding) and a slightly larger number (97% with a Life Safety chapter finding) that had no LS findings. So, bravo to those folks who managed to escape unscathed—that is no small feat given the amount of survey time (and survey eyes) looking at the physical environment. Not sure what he secret is for those folks, but if there’s anyone out there in the studio audience that would like to share their recipe for success (even anonymously: I can be reached directly at stevemacsafetyspace@gmail.com), please do, my friends, please do.

Another interesting bit of information deals with the EC/LS findings that are “pushing” into the upper right-hand sectors of the SAFER matrix (findings with moderate or high likelihood of harm with a pattern or widespread level of occurrence). Now, I will freely admit that I am not convinced that the matrix setup works as well for findings in the physical environment, particularly since the numbers are so small (and yes, I understand that it’s a very small sample size). For example, if you have three dusty sprinkler heads in three locations, that gets you a spot in the “widespread” category. I don’t know, it just makes me grind my teeth a little more fiercely. And the EP cited most frequently in the high likelihood of harm category? EC.02.02.01 EP5—handling of hazardous materials! I am reasonably confident that a lot of those findings have to do with the placement/maintenance of eyewash stations (and I’ve seen a fair number of what I would characterize as draconian “reads” on all manner of considerations relating to eyewash stations, which reminds me: if you don’t have maintenance-free batteries for your emergency generators and you don’t have ready access to emergency eyewash equipment when those batteries are being inspected/serviced, then you may be vulnerable during your next survey).

At the end of the day, I suppose there is no end to what can be (and, clearly, is) found in the physical environment, and I absolutely “get” the recent focus on pressure relationships and ligature risks (and, soon enough, probably Legionella–it was a featured topic of coverage in the EC presentation), but a lot of the rest of this “stuff” seems a little like padding to me…

If it’s September, it’s time for Executive Briefings!

I suspect that, over the next few weeks, as I learn of stuff coming out of the various and sundry Joint Commission Executive Briefings sessions, I’ll be sharing some thoughts, etc., in those regards here in the ol’ blog.

The first thing to “pop” at me was some information regarding Chapter 15 (Features of Fire Protection) in NFPA 99 Health Facilities Code (2012 edition) relating to the management of surgical fire risks. If you’ve not had a chance to check out section 13 of said chapter, I think it will be worth your while as there are a couple of things that in the past one might have described as a best practice. But, with the official adoption of NFPA 99 by CMS, this has become (more or less, but definitely more than before) the law of the land. From a practical standpoint, I can absolutely get behind the concepts contained in this section (I’m pretty comfortable with the position that any surgical fire is at least one more than we should have), but from a strict compliance standpoint, I know that it can be very challenging to get the folks up in surgery to “play ball” with the physical environment rules and regulations.

As one might expect, the whole thing breaks down into a few components: hazard assessment; establishment of fire prevention procedures; management of germicides and antiseptics; establishment of emergency procedures; orientation and training. I think the piece of this that might benefit from some focused attention relates to the management of germicides and antiseptics, particularly as a function of the required “timeout” for the germicide/antiseptic application process. And yes my friends, I did say “required”; Section 15.13.3.6 indicates (quite specifically) that a preoperative “timeout” period shall be conducted prior to the initiation of any surgical procedure using flammable liquid germicides or antiseptics to verify that:

  • Application site of flammable germicide or antiseptic is dry prior to draping and use of electrosurgery, cautery, or a laser
  • Pooling of solution has not occurred or has been corrected
  • Any solution-soaked materials have been removed from the operating room (OR) prior to draping and use of electrosurgery, cautery, or a laser

Now, I will freely and openly admit that I’ve not done a deep dive into the later chapters of NFPA 99 (though that’s on my to-do list), so I hadn’t bumped into this, but I can definitely see this being a potential vulnerability, particularly in light of the recent FDA scrutiny (and it goes to Linda B’s question in follow-up to a recent blog posting—I probably should have turtled to this at that point—mea maxima culpa). At any rate, nothing in this section of NFPA 99 is arguable unless you don’t have it in place and a surveyor “goes there,” so perhaps you should be sure that your OR folks are already “there” sooner rather than later.

Two closing items:

  • The good folks at the Facilities Guidelines Institute have provided a state-by-state resource identifying which states have adopted the FGI guidelines (completely, partially, not really). You can find that information here.
  • Also,  Triumvirate Environmental is presenting a couple of webinars over the next little while that might be of interest. The one this week (sorry for the short notice) deals with the recently established by EPA’s Hazardous Waste e-Manifest Program and then the week after next, there’s a program on Best Practices to Optimize Your Waste Documentation Program. While I can’t call these crazy risky survey vulnerabilities, EC.02.02.01 is still percolating around the top of the most frequently cited list, so it never hurts to obtain greater familiarity with this stuff.

Enjoy your week safely!

Changing (not so much) perspectives on survey trends: Infection Control and Medication Safety

By now I suspect that you’re probably seen/heard that the survey results for the first half of 2018 are only surprising to the extent that there are no surprises (well, maybe a small one, but more on that in a moment). There’s a little bit of jockeying for position, but I think that we can safely say that the focus on the physical environment (inclusive of environmental concerns relating to infection control and prevention) is continuing on apace. There’s a little bit of shifting, and the frequencies with which the various standards are being cited is a wee bit elevated, but the lion’s share of the survey results that I’ve seen are indicative of them continuing to find the stuff they will always be able to find in this era of the single deficiency gets you a survey “ding.” The continuing hegemony of LS.02.01.35 just tells me that dusty sprinklers, missing escutcheons, stacked-too-high storage, etc., can be found just about anywhere if the survey team wants to look for it.

One interesting “new” arrival to the top 10 is IC.02.01.01, which covers implementation of the organization’s infection control plan. I have seen this cited, and, interestingly enough, the findings have involved the maintenance of ice machines (at least so far) and other similar utility systems infection control equipment such as sterilizers (for which there is a specific EP under the utilities management standards). I suspect that what we have here is the beginning of a focus on how infection control and prevention oversight dovetails with the management of the physical environment. I know that this is typically a most collaborative undertaking in hospitals, but we have seen how the focus on the “low hanging fruit” can generate consternation about the overall management of programs. As I’ve noted countless times, there are no perfect environments, but if don’t/can’t get survey credit for appropriately managing those imperfections, it can be rather disheartening.

Couple other items of note in the September issue of Perspectives, mostly involving the safe preparation of medications. As you know, there are equipment, utility systems, environmental concerns, etc., that can influence the medication preparation processes. The Consistent Interpretations column focuses on that very subject and while the survey finding numbers seem to be rather modest, it does make me think that this could be an area of significant focus moving forward. I would encourage you to check out the information in Perspectives and keep a close eye on the medication preparation environment(s)—it may save you a little heartache later on.

CMS Ligature Risk Update: Not quite finished…

Cast aside the doubt that nothing good came come this way again!

On July 20, 2018, CMS issued further information regarding its expectations for ensuring that behavioral health patients are being provided a safe and appropriate environment. There had been some indication that CMS might be undertaking their own analysis of the current state of things, but it appears that CMS is going to incorporate the outcomes of The Joint Commission’s (TJC) suicide panel (in which CMS representatives participated) into a comprehensive ligature risk interpretive guidance. The memorandum does not indicate when we can expect the finalized interpretive guidance, but things do seem to be moving at a pretty good clip, so I’m thinking (maybe, just maybe), we’ll see that information before the end of the year. As a point of information (and you know I’m all about the points), the Joint Commission guidance cited in the CMS memorandum can be found here: and some clarifying FAQs issued by TJC last month (but not specifically referenced in the CMS memorandum) can be found here: (the information specific to ligature risks is about half way down the page). I know we’ve covered this over the past few months, but I can never be sure at which point in the conversation folks tune in, so I figured it doesn’t hurt to have links for what is current (at the moment…).

For those of you who have not yet tackled all of the particulars relating to the guidance issued from Joint Commission (mostly because you do not use TJC for deemed status accreditation purposes), I do think that the compliance path appears to be fairly reasonable and straightforward from an implementation standpoint. That said, until the interpretive guidance is finalized by CMS, there will likely continue to be some surveyor interpretation in the mix, particularly on the part of those accreditation and regulatory organizations other than Joint Commission (DNV, CIHQ, HFAP, state agencies, etc.). Which means it will be incumbent upon pretty much all hospitals to know where they stand relative to TJC recommendations, particularly as a function of how the strategies and facilities modifications they’ve made meet the intent of the recommendations. Some recent non-TJC survey activities indicate that the “other” accreditation organizations are starting to focus on this topic and, right now, are very much where TJC was in early 2017 when surveyors were inclined to identify anything and everything as a potential, unmanageable risk. And lots of re-surveys following in the wake of those determinations

Beyond a familiarity/assessment relative to the TJC recommendations, the “other” piece of which you need to be mindful is that whatever fixes they identify need to be completed before survey or there will likely be some back and forth relative to Immediate Threat, the need for re-survey, etc.  As we’ve discussed in the past (and this surely goes beyond ligature-resistant hardware), a lot of folks with a significant number of fixes are very much at the mercy of the supplies of needed hardware, etc. At a minimum, hospitals that haven’t completed their “laundry list” of fixes must have a risk assessment in place that outlines not only what is to be done from a facilities standpoint, but what strategies are in place to ensure that the risk to patients is being properly managed in the interim (this is very similar to the survey methodology dealing with Interim Life Safety Measures). As I’ve told folks time and again, you don’t get credit for doing the math in your head—at the end of the day, when you have a survey team “in the house,” the only “good” risk assessment is a risk assessment that is fully documented, approved by the appropriate organizational authorities, etc. If you don’t have an assessment ready to go for survey, it’s likely to be a very tough slog.

At any rate, it does appear that this one is going to be winding down in terms of survey activity, which will bring no small measure of relief to the survey preparation process, but it does beg the question of whether this is the last big environmental dope-slap or if there’s something else waiting in the wings to make us crazy. Any thoughts?

Odds and Sods: Clearing out the Safety Brain

Once again, I come face-to-face with my depository for blog postings and the like, so we have something of a mixed bag this week, with very little in the way of a common theme…

I’m sure folks saw the news story regarding the dead woman found in a stairwell of a hospital power plant and it got me to thinking about the increasing importance of ensuring that all your unmonitored perimeter points are as secure as they can be. It appears that the woman was able to gain access to the stairwell and was either too confused or otherwise compromised to make her way back out. The hospital has since hardened the perimeter of the power plant, but I think this points out that you really need to encourage folks to be on the lookout (security rounds can really only go so far) for unusual circumstances/ folks in their environments. It may be that there was nothing that could be done to prevent this tragedy, but I think it serves as a reminder that you really can’t be too secure.

As something of a parallel pursuit, HCPro recently re-aired a webinar presented my good friend and colleague Ken Rohde on the topic of occurrence reporting and its impact on operations, including the safety realm. Ken is an awesome presenter with a completely useful take on how safety operations impact, and are impacted, by how we manage occurrence reporting, particularly as a source of data for making improvements. If you have some monies in your budget for education, I really encourage you to check out the On-Demand presentation and let Ken help you improve your safety program.

In other parts of my noggin, I was looking at the crosswalk that TJC provides in the online version of their accreditation manual and was contemplating what is referenced as the applicable CMS requirement that “drives” the documentation requirements under EC.02.03.05 EP #28. In all candor, what prompted me to look was this nagging feeling that there are a lot of other required process documentation elements in other parts of the Environment of Care standards and whether there is a likelihood of those documentation requirements being carried over to things like generator testing, medical gas and vacuum system testing, etc. (for you pop culture enthusiasts, I consulted the magic 8 ball and it says “signs point to yes”; for those of you not yet familiar with the amazing technology that is the Magic 8 Ball, find more here). And when I looked at the TJC/CMS crosswalk, I noted that not only is the Life Safety Code® invoked as a referenced requirement, but also the Emergency Preparedness Condition as a function of the provision of alternate sources of energy for maintaining fire detection, extinguishing, and alarm systems. It may not be an imminent shift, but I think you would do well to consider adopting the documentation format outlined under EC.02.03.05 EP #28—it will help organize compliance and maybe, just maybe, keep you a half-step ahead of the sheriff…

On a closing note, I have (yet another) summer reading recommendation for folks: I think we can all agree that the use of effective communications is one of the most powerful tools that we can bring to our safety practices. As you all know every well (I’ve been inflicting this on you all for many, many…), I do tend towards more florid descriptors (that’s one there; I mean who uses “florid” anymore?), which can make comprehension difficult across a multi-faceted audience if you do not take into consideration the entirety of the audience. At any rate, I recently finished Alan Alda’s latest If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face?, which deals with the science of communications and provides a lot of thought-provoking suggestions on how we might improve the effectiveness of interpersonal communications at every level of life. For me, the most compelling insight was the notion that is the responsibility of the person doing the communicating to make sure that the audience is comprehending what is being communicated. That prompted me to reflect on any number of conversations I’ve had over the years, more or less revolving around the frustration with an audience that “just doesn’t get it” and the thought that perhaps the audience (in all its parameters) merits more consideration when things don’t work out in the way it was planned. At any rate, I found a lot of interesting perspectives on communications and (it’s a pretty quick read) I think you might find a nugget or two for your own use.

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.