Standards of practice for hospital libraries and librarians, 2022: Medical Library Association Hospital Libraries Caucus Standards Task Force.

The Hospital Library Caucus of the Medical Library Association (MLA) follows the practice established in 1953 of developing quality indicators and best practices in the newly developing and fast-changing world of hospital libraries. As these libraries increased in number and prominence, the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAHO) included in 1978 a hospital library standard developed in collaboration with MLA. Subsequent changes in JCAHO, then The Joint Commission (TJC) knowledge management criteria as well as technological changes in the curation and delivery of evidence-based resources influenced standards changes over the years. The 2022 standards mark the most recent edition, replacing the 2007 standards.

A Guide to Performance Evaluation for the Intensivist: Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation and Focused Professional Practice Evaluation in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: In 2008, The Joint Commission implemented a new standard mandating a detailed evaluation of a provider's performance. The Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation was designed to provide ongoing performance evaluation as opposed to periodic evaluation. The Focused Professional Practice Evaluation was designed to evaluate the performance of providers new to the medical staff or providers who are requesting new privileges. To date, we are unable to find critical care specific literature on the implementation of Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation/Focused Professional Practice Evaluation. The purpose of this concise definitive review is to familiarize the reader with The Joint Commission standards and their application to Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation/Focused Professional Practice Evaluation design and implementation, literature review in the noncritical care setting, and future process optimization and automation. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified through MEDLINE search using a variety of search phrases related to Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation, Focused Professional Practice Evaluation, critical care medicine, healthcare quality, and The Joint Commission. Additional articles were identified through a review of the reference lists of identified articles. STUDY SELECTION: Original articles, review articles, and systematic reviews were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: Manuscripts were selected for inclusion based on expert opinion of well-designed or key studies and review articles. DATA SYNTHESIS: There is limited data for the process of Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation and Focused Professional Practice Evaluation implementation in critical care medicine. Key recommendations exist from The Joint Commission but leave it up to healthcare institutions to realize these. The process and metrics can be tailored to specific institutions and departments. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is no standard process to develop Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation and Focused Professional Practice Evaluation processes in critical care medicine. Departments and institutions can tailor metrics and processes but it might be useful to standardize some metrics to assure the overall quality of care. In the future utilization of newer technologies like applications might make this process less time-intensive.

Hospital Quality Metrics: "America's Best Hospitals" and Outcomes After Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Developing quality metrics to assess hospital-level care and outcomes is increasingly popular in the United States. The U.S. News & World Report ranking of "America's Best Hospitals" is an existing, popular hospital-profiling system, but it is unknown whether top-ranked hospitals in their report have better outcomes according to other hospital quality metrics such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly reported 30-day stroke measures. METHODS: The analysis was based on the 2015-2016 U.S. News & World Report ranking of the 50 top-rated hospitals for neurology and neurosurgery and 2012-2014 CMS Hospital Compare Data. We used mixed models adjusted for hospital characteristics and weighted by hospital volume to compare 30-day risk-standardized mortality and readmission between top-ranked and other hospitals. Among the 50 top-ranked hospitals, we determined whether ranking order was associated with the CMS outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with 2737 other hospitals, the 50 top-ranked hospitals had lower 30-day mortality (14.8% versus 15.3%) but higher readmission (14.5% versus 13.3%). These patterns persisted in adjusted analyses with top-ranked hospitals having .72% (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.09%, -.34%) lower mortality and .41% (95% CI .16%, .67%) higher readmission. Among top-ranked hospitals, rank order was not associated with mortality (.05% decrease in mortality with each rank, 95% CI -.10%, .01%) or readmission (.02% increase; 95% CI -.03%, .06%). CONCLUSION: Admission to a top-ranked hospital for neurology or neurosurgery was associated with lower 30-day risk-standardized mortality but higher readmission after ischemic stroke. There was heterogeneity in outcomes among the 50 top-ranked hospitals.

Acing the Joint Commission Regulatory Visit: Running an Effective and Compliant Safety Program.

Ensuring the safety of patients and staff is a core effort of all health care organizations. Many regulatory agencies, from The Joint Commission to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, provide policies and guidelines, with relevant metrics to be achieved. Data on safety can be obtained through a variety of mechanisms, including gemba walks, team discussion during safety huddles, audits, and individual employee entries in safety reporting systems. Data can be organized on a scorecard that provides an at-a-glance view of progress and early warning signs of practice drift. In this article, relevant policies are outlined, and instruction on how to achieve compliance with national patient safety goals and regulations that ensure staff safety and Joint Commission ever-readiness are described. Additional critical components of a safety program, such as department commitment, a just culture, and human factors engineering, are discussed. ©RSNA, 2018.

Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation of Radiologists: Strategies and Tools for Simplifying a Complex Process.

The Joint Commission, our major accreditation organization, requires that all physicians who have been granted privileges at an organization must undergo evaluation of and collect data relating to their performance, to make the decisions of privileging more objective and continuous by that organization. For radiologists, this so-called ongoing professional practice evaluation (OPPE) can be assessed by using the six general core competencies. These competencies were initially developed for graduate medical education and defined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and have now been expanded to provide a general framework for defining categories of data to be collected in assessing the performance of practicing radiologists. Within each core competency, various radiology-relevant metrics exist that can be measured to fulfill the OPPE requirements. Each radiology department can determine the specific type of data to be collected, including determining what items are defined as acceptable performance metrics, what data or outcomes require further monitoring, and what specific data or data trends would trigger the need for an additional focused and more thorough professional practice evaluation, also known as a focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE). ©RSNA, 2018.

The Hidden Cost of Regulation: The Administrative Cost of Reporting Serious Reportable Events.

BACKGROUND: More than half of the 50 states (27) and the District of Columbia require reporting of Serous Reportable Events (SREs). The goal is to hold providers accountable and improve patient safety, but there is little information about the administrative cost of this reporting requirement. This study was conducted to identify costs associated with investigating and reporting SREs. METHODS: This qualitative study used case study methods that included interviewing staff and review of data and documents to investigate each SRE occurring at one academic medical center during fiscal year 2013. A framework of tasks and a model to categorize costs was created. Time was summarized and costs were estimated for each SRE. RESULTS: The administrative cost to process 44 SREs was estimated at $353,291, an average cost of $8,029 per SRE, ranging $6,653 for an environmental-related SRE to $21,276 for a device-related SRE. Care management SREs occurred most frequently, costing an average $7,201 per SRE. Surgical SREs, the most expensive on average, cost $9,123 per SRE. Investigation of events accounted for 64.5% of total cost; public reporting, 17.2%; internal reporting, 10.2%; finance and administration, 6.0%; and 2.1%, other. Even with 26 states mandating reporting, the 17.2% incremental cost of public reporting is substantial. CONCLUSION: Policy makers should consider the opportunity costs of these resources, averaging $8,029 per SRE, when mandating reporting. The benefits of public reporting should be collectively reviewed to ensure that the incremental costs in this resource-constrained environment continue to improve patient safety and that trade-offs are acknowledged.

Impact of Stroke Center Certification on Mortality After Ischemic Stroke: The Medicare Cohort From 2009 to 2013.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An increasing number of hospitals have been certified as primary stroke centers (PSCs). It remains unknown whether the action toward PSC certification has improved the outcome of stroke care. This study aimed to understand whether PSC certification reduced stroke mortality. METHODS: We examined Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who were hospitalized between 2009 and 2013 for ischemic stroke. Hospitals were classified into 3 groups: new PSCs, the hospitals that received initial PSC certification between 2009 and 2013 (n=634); existing PSCs, the PSCs certified before 2009 (n=785); and non-SCs, the hospitals that have never been certified as PSCs (n=2640). Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the mortality among the 3 groups. RESULTS: Existing PSCs were significantly larger than new PSCs as reflected by total number of beds and annual stroke admission (P<0.0001). Compared with existing PSCs, new PSCs had lower in-hospital (odds ratio, 0.862; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.817-0.910) and 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.981; 95% CI, 0.968-0.993), after adjusting for patient demographics and comorbidities. Compared with non-SCs, new PSCs had lower adjusted in-hospital (odds ratio, 0.894; 95% CI, 0.848-0.943), 30-day (HR, 0.904; 95% CI, 0.892-0.917), and 1-year mortality (HR, 0.907; 95% CI, 0.898-0.915). Existing PSCs had lower adjusted 30-day (HR, 0.922; 95% CI, 0.911-0.933) and 1-year mortality (HR, 0.900; 95% CI, 0.892-0.907) than non-SCs. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining stroke certification may reduce stroke mortality and overcome the disadvantage of being smaller hospitals. Further study of other outcome measures will be useful to improve stroke system of care.

Rural Implications of Expanded Birth Volume Threshold for Reporting Perinatal Care Measures.

BACKGROUND: In 2016 the minimum annual birth volume threshold for required reporting of the Joint Commission Perinatal Care measures by accredited hospitals decreased from 1,100 to 300 births. METHODS: Publicly available Joint Commission Quality Check data from April 2014 to March 2015 for three Perinatal Care measures were linked to Medicare Provider of Services and American Hospital Association Annual Survey data. For each measure, hospital-level reporting and performance among accredited hospitals providing obstetric care were compared using Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Sixty-seven percent of the 2,396 accredited hospitals with obstetric services reported at least one eligible patient for two of the four reported Perinatal Care measures: Elective delivery and exclusive breast milk feeding. Fewer hospitals (35.0%) had data on the antenatal steroids measure; many hospitals may not have any eligible patients for this measure. Hospitals with higher birth volume, those in urban counties, and those with private, nonprofit ownership or system affiliation were more likely to report the perinatal measures (p < 0.001). Across states, reporting rates varied considerably. By hospital volume, performance varied more on the antenatal steroids measure (78.0% to 91.5%) than on the breast milk feeding measure (48.4% to 49.5%) and the elective delivery measure (2.5% to 3.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of the minimum birth volume threshold nearly doubles the number of accredited hospitals required to report the Perinatal Care measures to The Joint Commission. However, 485 accredited hospitals with obstetric services that are either critical access hospitals or have fewer than 300 births annually are still exempt from reporting. Although many rural hospitals remain exempt from reporting requirements, the measures offer an opportunity for both rural and urban hospitals to assess and improve care.

Using the Targeted Solutions Tool® to Improve Hand Hygiene Compliance Is Associated with Decreased Health Care-Associated Infections.

BACKGROUND: In 2010 Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) implemented the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare's (the Center's) Web-based Targeted Solutions Tool ®(TST ®) for improving hand hygiene through-out its 12 hospitals after participating in the Center's first project on hand hygiene, pilot testing the TST, and achieving significant improvement for each pilot unit. Because hand hygiene is a key contributing factor in health care-associated infections (HAIs), this project was an important part of MHHS's strategy to eliminate HAIs. METHODS: MHHS implemented the TST for hand hygiene in 150 inpatient units in 12 hospitals and conducted a system wide process improvement project from October 2010 through December 2014. The TST enabled MHHS to measure compliance rates, identify reasons for noncompliance, implement tested interventions provided by the TST, and sustain the improvements. Data on rates of ICU central line- associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) and ventilator- associated pneumonia (VAP) were also collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Based on 31,600 observations (October 2010- May 2011), MHHS's system wide hand hygiene compliance baseline rate averaged 58.1%. Compliance averaged 84.4% during the "improve" phase (June 2011-November 2012), 94.7% in the first 13 months of the "control phase" (December 2012-December 2014) and 95.6% in the final 12 months (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons to baseline). Con comitantly, adult ICU CLABSI and VAP rates decreased by 49% (p = 0.024) and 45% (p = 0.045), respectively. CONCLUSION: MHHS substantially improved hand hygiene compliance in its hospitals and sustained high levels of compliance for 25 months following implementation. Adult ICU CLABSI and VAP rates decreased in association with the hand hygiene compliance improvements.

Sustaining Reliability on Accountability Measures at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

BACKGROUND: In 2012 Johns Hopkins Medicine leaders challenged their health system to reliably deliver best practice care linked to nationally vetted core measures and achieve The Joint Commission Top Performer on Key Quality Measures ®program recognition and the Delmarva Foundation award. Thus, the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality implemented an initiative to ensure that ≥96% of patients received care linked to measures. Nine low-performing process measures were targeted for improvement-eight Joint Commission accountability measures and one Delmarva Foundation core measure. In the initial evaluation at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, all accountability measures for the Top Performer program reached the required ≥95% performance, gaining them recognition by The Joint Commission in 2013. Efforts were made to sustain performance of accountability measures at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. METHODS: Improvements were sustained through 2014 using the following conceptual framework: declare and communicate goals, create an enabling infrastructure, engage clinicians and connect them in peer learning communities, report transparently, and create accountability systems. One part of the accountability system was for teams to create a sustainability plan, which they presented to senior leaders. To support sustained improvements, Armstrong Institute leaders added a project management office for all externally reported quality measures and concurrent reviewers to audit performance on care processes for certain measure sets. CONCLUSIONS: The Johns Hopkins Hospital sustained performance on all accountability measures, and now more than 96% of patients receive recommended care consistent with nationally vetted quality measures. The initiative methods enabled the transition of quality improvement from an isolated project to a way of leading an organization.

Rates of Adverse Events and Outcomes among Stroke Patients Admitted to Primary Stroke Centers.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To identify the beneficial effects of primary stroke centers (PSCs) certification by Joint Commission (JC), we compared the rates of in-hospital adverse events and discharge outcomes among ischemic stroke patients admitted to PSCs and those admitted to non-PSC hospitals in the United States. METHODS: We obtained the data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2010 and 2011. The analysis was limited to states that publicly reported hospital identity. PSCs were identified by matching the Nationwide Inpatient Sample hospital files with the list provided by JC. The analysis was limited to patients (age ≥18 years) discharged with a principal diagnosis of ischemic stroke (International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision, codes 433.x1, 434.x1). RESULTS: We identified a total of 123,131 ischemic stroke patients from 28 states. A total of 72,982 (59.3%) patients were admitted to PSCs. After adjusting for age, gender, race or ethnicity, comorbidities, All Patients Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG)-based disease severity, and hospital teaching status, patients admitted to PSCs were at lower risk of in-hospital adverse events complications: pneumonia (odds ratio [OR], .8; 95% confidence interval [CI], .7-.8) and sepsis (OR, .7; 95% CI, .6-.8). Patients admitted to PSCs were more likely to receive thrombolysis (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.5-1.7). The mean cost of hospitalization (95% CI) of the patients was significantly higher in patients admitted at PSCs compared with those admitted at non PSC hospitals $47621 (47099-48144) vs. $35229 (34803-35654), P < .0001). The patients admitted to PSCs had lower inpatient mortality (OR, .8; 95% CI, .8-.9) and were more likely to be discharged with none to minimal disability (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with non-PSC admissions, patients admitted to PSCs are less likely to experience hospital adverse events and more likely to experience better discharge outcomes.

Effect of Joint Commission International Accreditation on the Nursing Work Environment in a Tertiary Medical Center.

How might a tertiary hospital's nursing staff respond to the huge improvement effort required for external accreditation if they are encouraged to lead the change process themselves? This article reports the results of a concurrent evaluation of the nursing work climate at ward level, before and after accreditation by the Joint Commission International. Physician-nurse relations improved; the involvement of social workers, dieticians, and physiotherapists increased; support services responded more quickly to requests; and management-line staff relations became closer.

Sounding the alarm about suicide risk.

The Joint Commission (TJC) issued a Sentinel Event Alert, noting that in too many instances healthcare providers are not recognizing signs of suicide risk in patients who present for care. While the agency calls on all frontline providers to screen for suicide risk, experts note the issue is of particular importance to EDs because this is one of the most likely places for patients at high risk for suicide to present. Beyond identifying risk, experts note emergency providers and staff must receive training to effectively manage patients at risk for suicide. Further, TJC calls for the development of appropriate referral sources and mechanisms for follow-up contact. TJC reports that between 2010 and 2014, its Sentinel Event Database received 1,089 reports of suicides. The most common root cause was inadequate assessment. According to TJC, in 2014 more than 21% of accredited behavioral health organizations and 5% of accredited hospitals were non-compliant with conducting a risk assessment to identify patient characteristics or environmental factors related to suicide risk. Beyond instances of obvious risk, strong tipoffs that suicide is a concern include signs of hopelessness or evidence that the patient has no sense of the future. Further, experts note the strongest indicator of a future suicide attempt is a past attempt, so evidence in the record of a past suicide attempt, or a family history of suicide, should be taken very seriously. Researchers found that a three-item instrument, dubbed the Patient Safety Screener-3, can double the number of patients identified as at risk for suicide over usual care in a busy emergency setting. Experts recommend asking screening questions during the primary nursing assessment for most patients, and at triage for patients who present with a primary psychiatric complaint. Some experts suggest regionalizing mental health care, much like the country does with trauma care. However, communities must ensure they maintain adequate funding for such endeavors.

Hospital incident command system: tool for a TJC accreditation survey.

The unannounced Joint Commission (TJC) accreditation survey can prove just as unpredictable and challenging as any other incident. In this article, the authors describe a plan developed by a hospital emergency response team that has proven successful in dealing with TJC and other surveys.

Vascular Neurologists as Directors of Stroke Centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hospital certification as primary and comprehensive stroke center is associated with improvement in care. We aimed to characterize the leadership at stroke centers nationwide to determine the proportion led by vascular neurologists, a board-recognized subspecialty focusing on stroke care. METHODS: We identified hospitals in the United States holding primary and comprehensive stroke center designation as of September 2013. We contacted each hospital to identify the medical director and used data from relevant medical boards to determine specialization. Sex and date of medical school graduation were obtained from an online physician database. RESULTS: Of the 1167 primary and 50 comprehensive stroke center hospitals certified by the Joint Commission (n=1114), Det Norske Veritas (n=68), and Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (n=35), we identified the director in 940 (77%). Leadership was most often by a neurologist (n=745; 79%) followed by physicians in emergency medicine (n=58; 6%) and internal medicine (n=17; 2%). Vascular neurologists (n=319) led about one-third of stroke centers. Directors were mostly men (n=764; 81%), with a median number of years after medical school graduation of 25 (interquartile range, 18-34). Comprehensive stroke centers were more likely than primary stroke centers to have leadership by vascular neurologist (77%, n=37 versus 32%, n=282; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular neurologist led about one-third of stroke centers. There is opportunity for vascular neurologists to increase their role in stroke center directorship.

Outcomes Achieved Through Implementation of Interdisciplinary Plans of Care.

The process used to implement interdisciplinary plans of care on a pilot 32-bed stroke unit to meet Joint Commission requirements is described. Outcomes achieved as a result of the change also are reviewed.