RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission's National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) for suicide prevention (NPSG.15.01.01) requires that accredited hospitals maintain policies/procedures for follow-up care at discharge for patients identified as at risk for suicide. The proportion of hospitals meeting these requirements through use of recommended discharge practices is unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study explored the prevalence of suicide prevention activities among Joint Commission-accredited hospitals. A questionnaire was sent to 1,148 accredited hospitals. The authors calculated the percentage of hospitals reporting implementation of four recommended discharge practices for suicide prevention. RESULTS: Of 1,148 hospitals, 346 (30.1%) responded. The majority (nâ¯=â¯212 [61.3%]) of hospitals had implemented formal safety planning, but few of those (nâ¯=â¯41 [19.3%]) included all key components of safety planning. Approximately a third of hospitals provided a warm handoff to outpatient care (nâ¯=â¯128 [37.0%)] or made follow-up contact with patients (nâ¯=â¯105 [30.3%]), and approximately a quarter (nâ¯=â¯97 [28.0%]) developed a plan for lethal means safety. Very few (nâ¯=â¯14 [4.0%]) hospitals met full criteria for implementing recommended suicide prevention activities at time of discharge. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a significant gap in implementation of recommended practices related to prevention of suicide postdischarge. Additional research is needed to identify factors contributing to this implementation gap.
Assuntos
Alta do Paciente , Prevenção do Suicídio , Humanos , Alta do Paciente/normas , Estudos Transversais , Estados Unidos , Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations , Segurança do Paciente/normas , Gestão da Segurança/organização & administração , Gestão da Segurança/normas , Fidelidade a Diretrizes/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Beginning in October 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued expanded guidance requiring accrediting organizations and state survey agencies to report serious infection control breaches to relevant state health departments. This project sought to characterize and summarize The Joint Commission's early experiences and findings in applying this guidance to facilities accredited under the ambulatory and office-based surgery programs in 2017. METHODS: Surveyor notes were retrospectively reviewed to identify individual breaches, and then the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Infection Prevention Checklist for Outpatient Settings was used to categorize and code documented breaches. RESULTS: Of 845 ambulatory organizations, 39 (4.6%) had breaches observed during the survey process and reported to health departments. Within these organizations, surveyors documented 356 breaches, representing 52 different breach codes. Common breach domains were sterilization of reusable devices, device reprocessing observation, device reprocessing, disinfection of reusable devices, and infection control program and infrastructure. Eight of the 39 facilities (20.5%) were cited for not performing the minimum level of reprocessing based on the items' intended use, reusing single-use devices, and/or not using aseptic technique to prepare injections. CONCLUSION: The CMS infection control breach reporting requirement has helped highlight some of the challenges faced by ambulatory facilities in providing a safe care environment for their patients. This analysis identified numerous opportunities for improved staff training and competencies as well as leadership oversight and investment in necessary resources. More systematic assessments of infection control practices, extending to both accredited and nonaccredited ambulatory facilities, are needed to inform oversight and prevention efforts.