Joint Commission revises a few National Patient Safety Goals
In last week’s publication of Joint Commission Online, The Joint Commission announced it was revising a few National Patient Safety Goals (NPSG) related to clinical practice. The revisions were made to better reflect current evidence-based practice, according to The Joint Commission, which also said that when the NPSGs were originally created, they reflected the best practice at that time. There are no new requirements included.
The affected NPSGs include:
- NPSG.03.05.01 element of performance (EP) 6: Related to anticoagulant therapy-required lab-tests.
- NPSG.07.04.01 EP 11: Related to central line-associated bloodstream infections, specifically antiseptics for skin preparation.
- NPSG.07.05.01 EP 7: Related to surgical site infections, specifically administration of antimicrobial agents for prophylaxis.
- NPSG.07.05.01 EP 8: Also related to surgical site infections, specifically hair removal.
To find the exact revisions, click here for last week’s Joint Commission Online
About the Author: Heather Comak is a Managing Editor at HCPro, Inc., where she is the editor of the monthly publication Briefings on Patient Safety, as well as patient safety-related books, webcasts, and audio conferences. She is also is the Assistant Director of the Association for Healthcare Accreditation Professionals (www.accreditationprofessional.com) and manages Patient Safety Monitor (www.patientsafetymonitor.com), of which this blog is a part.
Contact Heather by e-mailing hcomak@hcpro.com
Tobias Gilk | Jun 29, 2010 | Reply
Isn’t this all just rearranging deck-chairs? TJC has said that they’re going to let NPSG’s wither and die.
Maybe ‘wither and die’ is a bit hyperbolic, but the acknowledgment that they’re not going to add any new NPSG’s at least relegates the NPSG’s to some sort of weird status on something akin to the ‘historic register’ of patient safety objectives.
If NPSG’s are to be retired (or cryogenically frozen in some time-defying stasis), and TJC hasn’t unveiled any new programs to take their place, why should anyone become excited about anachronistic ‘updates’ to a lame-duck safety tool?
Frankly, I’m concerned about the status of ‘quality and safety’ programs when the safety elements are goals, and not standards or expectations. This is true for NPSG’s and, with selective exceptions, it’s also true for Sentinel Event Alerts.