Joint Commission Publishes new Monograph about CLABSIs

On May 16th, the Joint Commission released a new Monograph reviewing the most recent evidence and thoughts surrounding Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections.

The free monograph can be downloaded here: http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/CLABSI_Monograph.pdf

Below is an excerpt from the press release announcing the free monograph (emphasis added in red):


New Monograph Aims to Decrease Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSIs)

The Joint Commission, in collaboration with Joint Commission Resources (JCR) and Joint Commission International (JCI), developed a new monograph containing the most current information, evidence-based guidance and resources to help health care organizations reduce the current risks and resulting harm associated with CLABSI. JCR and JCI are not-for-profit affiliates of The Joint Commission. The monograph was produced in partnership with infection prevention leaders from the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (SHEA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. (APIC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Association for Vascular Access (AVA), and the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC). In addition, several other domestic and international infection prevention leaders from countries such as Argentina, Australia, Egypt, Switzerland, Thailand and Saudi Arabia have lent their expertise to the monograph.

“Recent patient safety initiatives have demonstrated how preventable CLABSIs can be when evidence-based guidelines are consistently put into practice at the bedside,” says Jerod M. Loeb, Ph.D., executive vice president, Division of Healthcare Quality Evaluation, The Joint Commission. “Our hope is that these resources will empower health care providers to implement practices that have been shown to not only improve patient safety, but also reduce costs.”

The project is supported by a research grant from Baxter Healthcare Corporation and focuses on the identification and broad dissemination of preferred practices and technological solutions to prevent CLABSI. 

CMS Announces final details of Value Based Purchasing for Inpatient Acute Care

On April 29th, CMS announced the final rules of its upcoming Value Based Purchasing program for Inpatient Acute Care. This long anticipated program transitions the inpatient care provided to Medicare beneficaries from "pay for reporting" to "pay for performance".

The HHS press release itself is of little value to the healthcare quality professional. You can view it here: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/04/20110429a.html. However, it links to a CMS press release that contained more details. You can view it here: http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3947.

Although these rules become effective with fiscal year 2013, CMS also released the list of measures for 2014 as well.

The following are excerpts from the CMS press release:


PERFORMANCE SCORING:

Performance Period: CMS has established a performance period that runs from July 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012, for the FY 2013 Hospital VBP payment determination. CMS anticipates that in future program years, if it becomes feasible, it may propose to use a full year as the performance period.

Scoring Methods: CMS will score each hospital based on achievement and improvement ranges for each applicable measure. A hospital’s score on each measure will be the higher of an achievement score in the performance period or an improvement score, which is determined by comparing the hospital’s score in the performance period with its score during a baseline period.

For scoring on achievement, hospitals will be measured based on how much their current performance differs from all other hospitals’ baseline period performance. Points will then be awarded based on the hospital’s performance compared to the threshold and benchmark scores for all hospitals. Points will only be awarded for achievement if the hospital’s performance during the performance period exceeds a minimum rate called the “threshold,” which is defined by CMS as the 50th percentile of hospital scores during the baseline period.

For scoring on improvement, hospitals will be assessed based on how much their current performance changes from their own baseline period performance. Points will then be awarded based on how much distance they cover between that baseline and the benchmark score. Points will only be awarded for improvement if the hospital’s performance improved from their performance during the baseline period.

Finally, CMS will calculate a Total Performance Score (TPS) for each hospital by combining the greater of its achievement or improvement points on each measure to determine a score for each domain, multiplying each domain score by the proposed domain weight and adding the weighted scores together. In FY 2013, the clinical process of care domain will be weighted at 70 percent and the patient experience of care domain will be weighted at 30 percent.

Incentive Payment Calculations: CMS will utilize a linear exchange function to calculate the percentage of value-based incentive payment earned by each hospital. Those hospitals that receive higher Total Performance Scores will receive higher incentive payments than those that receive lower Total Performance Scores. CMS will notify each hospital of the estimated amount of its value-based incentive payment for FY 2013 through its QualityNet account at least 60 days prior to Oct. 1, 2012. CMS will notify each hospital of the exact amount of its value-based incentive payment on Nov. 1, 2012.

FISCAL YEAR 2013 MEASURES

Clinical Process of Care Measures
AMI-7a - Fibrinolytic Therapy Received Within 30 Minutes of Hospital Arrival
AMI-8a - Primary PCI Received Within 90 Minutes of Hospital Arrival
HF-1 - Discharge Instructions
PN-3b - Blood Cultures Performed in the ED Prior to Initial Antibiotic Received in Hospital
PN-6 - Initial Antibiotic Selection for CAP in Immunocompetent Patient
SCIP-Inf-1 - Prophylactic Antibiotic Received Within One Hour Prior to Surgical Incision
SCIP-Inf-2 - Prophylactic Antibiotic Selection for Surgical Patients
SCIP-Inf-3 - Prophylactic Antibiotics Discontinued Within 24 Hours After Surgery End Time
SCIP-Inf-4 - Cardiac Surgery Patients with Controlled 6AM Postoperative Serum Glucose
SCIP-Card-2 - Surgery Patients on a Beta Blocker Prior to Arrival That Received a Beta Blocker During the Perioperative Period
SCIP-VTE-1 - Surgery Patients with Recommended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Ordered
SCIP-VTE-2 - Surgery Patients Who Received Appropriate Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Within 24 Hours Prior to Surgery to 24 Hours After Surgery

Patient Experience of Care Measures (HCAHPS)
· Communication with Nurses
· Communication with Doctors
· Responsiveness of Hospital Staff
· Pain Management
· Communication About Medicines
· Cleanliness and Quietness of Hospital Environment
· Discharge Information
· Overall Rating of Hospital

ADDITIONAL MEASURES FINALIZED FOR FY2014

Mortality Measures:
· Mortality-30-AMI: Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) 30-day Mortality Rate
· Mortality-30-HF: Heart Failure (HF) 30-day Mortality Rate
· Mortality-30-PN: Pneumonia (PN) 30-Day Mortality Rate

Hospital Acquired Condition Measures:
· Foreign Object Retained After Surgery
· Air Embolism
· Blood Incompatibility
· Pressure Ulcer Stages III & IV
· Falls and Trauma: (Includes: Fracture, Dislocation, Intracranial Injury, Crushing Injury, Burn, Electric Shock)
· Vascular Catheter-Associated Infections
· Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)
· Manifestations of Poor Glycemic Control

AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), and Composite Measures:
· Complication/patient safety for selected indicators (composite)
· Mortality for selected medical conditions (composite)

Joint Commission Posts Accountability Measures FAQ

On July 19th, the Joint Commission posted its FAQ concerning it's recently announced accountability measures. It can be found here. The following are excerpts from the FAQ:

Accountability Measures - Frequently Asked Questions

What are “Accountability Measures?”
Accountability measures are quality measures that meet four criteria that produce the greatest positive impact on patient outcomes when hospitals demonstrate improvement on them.

The criteria for classifying accountability measures include:

Research: Strong scientific evidence exists demonstrating that compliance with a given process of care improves health care outcomes (either directly or by reducing the risk of adverse outcomes).
Proximity: The process being measured is closely connected to the outcome it impacts; there are relatively few clinical processes that occur after the one that is measured and before the improved outcome occurs.
Accuracy: The measure accurately assesses whether the evidence-based process has actually been provided. That is, the measure should be capable of judging whether the process has been delivered with sufficient effectiveness to make improved outcomes likely. If it is not, then the measure is a poor measure of quality, likely to be subject to workarounds that induce unproductive work instead of work that directly improves quality of care.
Adverse Effects: The measure construct is designed to minimize or eliminate unintended adverse effects.
These criteria are based on The Joint Commission’s experience implementing and evaluating the outcomes of quality measures for more than a decade. The criteria provide a more rational approach to the process of collecting and reporting quality data.

Why is The Joint Commission reclassifying the core measures as accountability measures and how will this help hospitals?
The Joint Commission wants to help hospitals improve performance on accountability measures in an effort to promote excellence in the delivery of care and maximize health outcomes, and in anticipation of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services incentive payments that become effective in 2013. The Joint Commission will eliminate measures that do not work well, include performance on accountability measures in accreditation standards and include only accountability measures in the ORYX program.

Why not remove non-accountability measures from use?
Measures that do not meet the accountability measures criteria can still prove to be a valuable source of information to hospitals. These measures are also currently used by other initiatives as standardized performance measures for assessing and reporting on hospital performance.

How will The Joint Commission utilize accountability measures in future accreditation activities?
The Joint Commission currently is considering a variety of innovative approaches to integrating hospital performance on the accountability measures into its survey and accreditation activities. To promote improved performance on accountability measures, and help hospitals prepare for the increasing reliance on attaining high performance on quality measures. The Joint Commission will be engaging accredited hospitals through focus groups and online surveys over the next few months.

Where can I locate additional information on accountability measures?
Additional information on accountability measures can be found in the June 23, 2010 special issue of Joint Commission Online and the June 23, 2010 on-line issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, “Accountability Measures: Using Measurement to Promote Quality Improvement.” Additional information will be posted on The Joint Commission’s Web site and in the August 2010 issue of Joint Commission Perspectives.

Will The Joint Commission continue to categorize measures as accountable and non-accountable measures?
In the future, The Joint Commission will only adopt accountability measures for use in its ORYX initiative.

Eight Recommendations for Policies for Communicating Abnormal Test Results

The Joint Commission recently published this article in its Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety (May 2010, Volume 36 No 5).

The article can be downloaded free from AHRQ here: http://psnet.ahrq.gov/public/Singh-JCJQPS-2010_PSNetID18026.pdf

The eight recommendations are:

1. Policies should be introduced with clear definitions of key terms.
2. Policies should clearly outline provider responsibilities.
3. Policies should specify procedures for fail-safe communication of abnormal test results.
4. Policies must define verbal and/or electronic reporting procedures for both critical and significantly abnormal laboratory, imaging, and other test values.
5. Policies should specify "Critical Tests" and acceptable length of time between their ordering and reporting.
6. Policies should define time lines between the availability of test results and patient notification, and institutions should specify preferred mechanisms for patient notification.
7. Policies must be of "real world" value and written with feedback from key stakeholders.
8. Policies should establish responsibilities for monitoring and evaluating communication procedures.

The following is the text of the Article-at-a-Glance:

Background: Health care organizations continue to struggle to ensure that critical findings are communicated and acted on in a timely and appropriate manner. Recent research highlights the risks of communication breakdowns along the entire spectrum of test-result abnormality, including
significantly abnormal but nonemergent findings. Evidence-based and practical institutional policies must uphold effective processes to guide communication of abnormal test results. Eight recommendations for effective policies on communication of abnormal diagnostic test results were developed based on policy refinement at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center
(Houston), institutional experience with test result management, and findings from research performed locally and elsewhere.

Key Facets of Effective Policies: Research findings on vulnerabilities in existing policies and procedures were taken into consideration. The eight recommendations are based on important refinements to the policy which clarified staff roles and responsibilities for test ordering, follow-up, and communication; defined categories of abnormal test results to guide appropriate follow-up action; and elaborated procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of test result communication
and follow-up. Participation of key stakeholders is recommended to enhance buy-in from personnel and to help ensure the policies feasibility and sustainability.

Conclusions: The proposed recommendations for ensuring safe test-result communication may be potentially useful to a wide variety of institutions and health care settings. These practical suggestions, based on research findings and experiences with a previous policy, may be a useful
guide for designing or amending policies for safe test-result communication in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Patient Safety ...in 3 words?

The following is cut and pasted directly from Abington Memorial Hospital's patient safety & quality web page.

You can go directly to the page here: http://www.amh.org/aboutus/patientsafetyandquality/three-words-video.aspx

You can go directly to the video here: http://amhweb.cachefly.net/Videos/aboutus/3Wordsvideo.swf

It only takes three words to tell someone how you feel, what you believe in or what’s important to you. At Abington Memorial Hospital, three words can describe our entire culture — Patient Safety First.

Patient Safety is AMH’s number one priority, and AMH employees are letting their patients, and each other, know just how important that priority is — with just three words.

Inspired by the popular Good Morning America segment, “Your Three Words,” AMH’s Center for Patient Safety and Healthcare Quality made a four-minute long video using the three-word concept. The video
features AMH employees from all departments — clinical, ancillary, support staff — offering their own personal three-word message of patient safety, while promoting safe behavior and teamwork.

AHRQ Tools and Resources to Prevent HAIs.

In early September, the AHRQ released a webpage highlighting research and resources related to the prevention of hospital acquired infections. This is an excellent site that links to tools and resources for both healthcare providers as well as healthcare consumers.

You can find the website here.

Joint Commission issues Sentinel Event Alert Regarding Leadership

On 8-27-09, the Joint Commission released a Sentinel Event Alert regarding leadership and its commitment to safety.

You can find the entire alert here.
The press release can be found here.

Within the alert are 14 recommendations for the governing body, CEO, and senior managers:

1. Define and establish an organization-wide safety culture that includes a code of conduct for all employees, including contract workers.
2. Institute an organization-wide policy of transparency that sheds light on all adverse events and patient safety issues within the organization, thereby creating an environment where it is safe for everyone to talk about real and potential organizational vulnerabilities and to support each other in an effort to report vulnerabilities and failures without fear of reprisal.
3. Make the organization’s overall safety performance a key, measurable part of the evaluation of the CEO and all leadership.
4. Ensure that caregivers involved in adverse events receive attention that is just, respectful, compassionate, supportive and timely. Also, make sure they have the opportunity to fully participate in the investigation, risk identification and mitigation activities that will prevent future adverse events.
5. Create and communicate a policy that defines behaviors that are to be referred for disciplinary action; include the timeframe that the disciplinary action should take place.
6. Regularly monitor and analyze adverse events and close calls quantitatively and communicate findings and recommendations to leadership, the board and staff. Conduct root cause analyses of adverse events. Look for patterns in root causes that identify latent hazards and weaknesses in the defenses against errors—the holes in the slices of cheese—and make sure they are addressed.
7. Regularly hold open discussions with risk management, performance improvement, physician, nursing and pharmacy leaders, and with physicians and staff caring for patients, to develop a true, unvarnished view of the safety risks and barriers to safety facing patients and staff. Patient safety rounds at the point of care could provide the ideal opportunity for these discussions, which should focus on learning and improvement, not blame or retribution.
8. Prioritize and address safety risks and barriers to safety according to a timeline, with the highest priority items getting immediate attention. Make a visible commitment of time and money to improve the systems and processes needed to defend against hazards and minimize unsafe acts. For example, some organizations create an emergency patient safety fund.
9. Establish partnerships with physicians and align their incentives to improving safety and using evidence-based medicine.
10. Add a human element and a sense of urgency to safety improvement by having patients communicate their experiences and perceptions to board members, executive leadership, medical staff, and other key leadership groups; also solicit patient input into safety design.
11. When planning and implementing safety improvements, use the expertise of front-line staff who understand the risks to patients and how processes really work.
12. Regularly measure leadership’s commitment to safety using climate surveys and upward appraisal techniques (in which staff review or appraise their managers and leaders).
13. When leaders assess managers during the annual performance review, make sure they ask about the safety issues the manager encountered, how they were handled, and the impact their actions had on reducing unsafe conditions.
14. Communicate to staff when their work improves safety. Reward and recognize those whose efforts contribute to safety.

Personal Opinion: Although senior leadership has the responsibility for creating a structure that is conducive to improving patient safety, senior leadership is also the least effective group to actually improve patient safety. It is the bedside staff that can impact patient safety the most - if allowed to by senior leadership. Maybe this list should have included more recommendations for senior leadership to empower the bedside staff to proactively assess and redesign their work flow to minimize risk factors?

2008 Indiana Medical Errors Report Released

On 8-20-09 the Indiana State Dept. of Health released its 2008 report on medical errors reported by hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, and abortion clinics via the reporting system mandated by the Governor in 2005 to start CY2006.

The State's Medical Error Reporting System webpage is here: http://www.in.gov/isdh/23433.htm (Note: The State frequently changes its webpage urls and thus the link may become useless at any time. It was working this morning.)

The 2008 report itself can be found here: http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/2008_MERS_Report.pdf
Data Tables: http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/2008_MERS_Data_Tables.pdf
Appendix: http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/2008_MERS_Appendices.pdf

The 2008 Report also contains descriptions of patient safety improvements efforts and activities that are ongoing throughout the state.

Note that the reporting rules have changed for CY2009. Prior to 1-1-09, 27 events had to be reported. Twenty-Eight events are now covered by the reporting system. The new list is here: http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/28_REPORTABLE_EVENTS.pdf

The release of the report has been lightly covered by local media:
IndyStar: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009908210343
WTHR: http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?s=10964770

APIC Study Finds Hospitals Are Cutting Back on Infection Prevention???

The Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology issued a press release on June 9th reporting its findings that hospitals are cutting back on the infection control/prevention function across the country.

You can download the press release here.

Excerpts:

The “2009 APIC Economic Survey” found that of nearly 2,000 infection preventionists who responded, 41 percent reported reductions in budgets for infection prevention in the last 18 months due primarily to the economic downturn.

According to the survey, three-quarters of those whose budgets were cut experienced decreases for the necessary education that trains healthcare personnel in preventing the transmission of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) such as MRSA and C. difficile. Half saw reductions in overall budgets for infection prevention, including money for technology, staff, education, products, equipment and updated resources. Nearly 40 percent had layoffs or reduced hours, and a third experienced hiring freezes.

“Infection prevention departments at our nation’s healthcare facilities are severely understaffed and under-resourced,” said APIC CEO Kathy L. Warye. “Without enough trained professionals, funding and high-tech solutions that speed access to infection-related data, we are not going to continue to make progress in eliminating preventable infections. While cuts in staff, training and technology may ease budgets in the shortterm, the effect of increased infections will erode the bottom line over time, not to mention cause needless pain, suffering and death.”

AHA: Hospitals in Pursuit of Excellence

Hospitals in Pursuit of Excellence is a resource for healthcare performance improvement professionals created by the American Hospital Association.

http://www.ahaqualitycenter.org/ahaqualitycenter/hpoe/index.html

The site provides some information about the IOM 6 aims or dimensions of healthcare quality. However, the vast majority of the content is case studies of how other hospitals have addressed common issues that we all have; ie hospital aquired infections, patient throughput, patient safety, etc...

This is a great place to start if you are about to launch a performance improvement project.

"Hospitals in Pursuit of Excellence is a strategic platform to identify and
disseminate field-tested practices, proven strategies, tools and resources that
can support and advance hospital leaders’ ongoing efforts to achieve performance
excellence— care that meets the 6 IOM aims— safe, timely, efficiency,
effectiveness, equity and patient-centered."

TJC: Measuring Hand Hygiene Adherence: Making the What, Why and How Decisions

The Joint Commission issued a press release tonight about a monograph they have been working on. The full text of the press release follows.

WARNING: The monograph is 232 pages and weighs 4.46MB!
You can download the monograph here.

(OAKBROOK TERRACE, Ill. – April 14, 2009) Preventing infections is critical to patient safety. Effective hand hygiene practices have long been recognized as the most important way to reduce the transmission of potentially deadly germs in health care settings. To help health care organizations target their efforts in measuring hygiene performance, The Joint Commission is releasing “Measuring Hand Hygiene Adherence: Overcoming the Challenges.”

The monograph is the result of a two-year collaboration with major infection control leadership organizations in the United States and abroad to identify effective approaches for measuring adherence to hand hygiene guidelines in health care organizations. In addition to The Joint Commission, the participating organizations include the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. (APIC), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), the World Health Organization (WHO) World Alliance for Patient Safety, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID).

Measuring compliance with hand hygiene practices has long been complicated because of the need to monitor the practices of many different care providers in numerous locations for sufficient periods of time. Without standardized approaches to measuring hand hygiene performance, it is impossible to determine whether overall performance is improving, deteriorating or unchanged as new strategic interventions are introduced. The Joint Commission’s National Patient Safety Goals require credited organizations to follow recognized hand hygiene guidelines; however, studies continue to show that adherence to these guidelines is lacking. This is due, in part, to the variation in approaches to measurement, which makes rates of adherence difficult to compare.

The monograph provides a framework to help health care workers make necessary decisions about when, why and how to measure compliance with hand hygiene. The monograph systematically reviews the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used approaches. Examples of measurement methods and tools in the monograph, which also includes references to evidence-based guidelines and published literature, were submitted by organizations through the Consensus Measurement in Hand Hygiene project. The project was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from GOJO Industries, Akron, Ohio.

“Measuring hand hygiene adherence is not a simple matter,” says Jerod M. Loeb, Ph.D., executive vice president, Division of Quality Measurement and Research, The Joint Commission. “The monograph can help health care organizations more effectively measure compliance and strengthen improvement activities that save lives and money.”

“Monitoring hand hygiene is useful only if the methods are valid and reliable and the results are widely disseminated and used to improve practice,” says Elaine Larson, R.N., Ph.D., F.A.A.N., C.I.C., scientific advisor for the project and associate dean for research at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York. “This Monograph will be an invaluable resource to institutions struggling to do it right.”

Electronic copies of the monograph are available on The Joint Commission’s Web site at http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/InfectionControl/hh_monograph.htm. A free printed copy is available by calling The Joint Commission’s Department of Customer Service Center at 630-790-5800, option 5, or sending an email to customerservice@jointcommission.org.

NQF Releases Safe Practices for Better Healthcare 2009 Update: A Consensus Report

A few days ago, the NQF released its 2009 Update of a previously released consensus report: Safe Practices for Better Healthcare.


The following is an excerpt of the document description posted on the NQF website:

Safe Practices for Better Healthcare—2009 Update presents 34 practices that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing the occurrence of adverse healthcare events. This revised set of NQF-endorsed safe practices has been updated with current evidence and expanded implementation approaches, and it provides additional measures for assessing the implementation of the practices.

As of today, only the electronic pdf version of the report is available. You can buy it here for $29.99.
A free summary report is here.


Did you miss out on the 2006 version? ...Not sure if your hospital can pay you back the $30? You can download the 2006 version for free at: http://www.qualityforum.org/pdf/projects/safe-practices/SafePractices2006UpdateFINAL.pdf

Interestingly, a quick Internet search will reveal the draft version of the 2009 version here.

Joint Commission to review NPSG 8 - Medication Reconciliation

The Joint Commission posted on their website yesterday that, due to the difficulty hospitals are having with implementation, they will be reviewing NPSG 8 - Medication Reconciliation.

Specifically:

Today, The Joint Commission Accreditation Committee determined that effective January 1, 2009, survey findings on National Patient Safety Goal 8 (Accurately and completely reconcile medications across the continuum of care) will continue to be evaluated during the on-site survey. However, given the difficulties that many organizations are having in meeting the complex requirements of NPSG 8, the Accreditation Committee agreed that The Joint Commission should evaluate and refine the expectations for accredited organizations. While this evaluation is being conducted, survey findings from NPSG 8 will not be factored into the organization’s accreditation decision. In addition, survey findings on NPSG 8 will not generate Requirements for Improvement (RFIs) and will not appear on the accreditation report.

You can read the entire posting at the Joint Commission Website here.