Perceptions of Chinese hospital leaders on joint commission international accreditation: a qualitative study.

Background: Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation plays a significant role in improving the quality of care and patient safety worldwide. Hospital leadership is critical in making international accreditation happen with successful implementation. Little is known about how Chinese hospital leaders experienced and perceived the impact of JCI accreditation. This paper is the first study to explore the perceptions of hospital leaders toward JCI accreditation in China. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were used to explore the perceptions of the chief operating officers, the chief medical officers, and the chief quality officers in five JCI-accredited hospitals in China. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts and identify the main themes. Results: Fifteen hospital leaders participated in the interviews. Three themes emerged from the analysis, namely the motivations, challenges, and benefits related to pursuing and implementing JCI accreditation. The qualitative study found that eight factors influenced hospital leadership to pursue JCI accreditation, five challenges were identified with implementing JCI standards, and eight benefits emerged from the leadership perspective. Conclusion: Pursuing JCI accreditation is a discretionary decision by the hospital leadership. Participants were motivated by prevalent perceptions that JCI requirements would be used as a management tool to improve the quality of care and patient safety in their hospitals. These same organizational leaders identified challenges associated with implementing and sustaining JCI accreditation. The significant challenges were a clear understanding of the foreign accreditation standards, making staff actively participate in JCI processes, and changing staff behaviors accordingly. The top 5 perceived benefits to JCI accreditation from the leaders' perspective were improved leadership and hospital safety, improvements in the care processes, and the quality of care and the learning culture improved. Other perceived benefits include enhanced reputation, better cost containment, and a sense of pride in the staff in JCI-accredited hospitals.

Linking Medicaid Expansion and Cuts to Disproportionate-Share Hospitals: Will Safety Nets Survive?

The predominant mechanism by which the health care reforms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 are to be financed is through the government's simultaneous defunding of major portions of Medicare and Medicaid, including the reduction of up to 75% of federal payments to disproportionate-share hospitals. The justification for curtailment of other public programs is that after Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, the decrease in the proportion of uninsured among the U.S. population will render disproportionate-share hospital payments extraneous and unnecessary. Such justification was reiterated in the recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion No. 627, entitled Health Care for Unauthorized Immigrants. Herein, the soundness of the Committee Opinion's proposed policy is evaluated by reviewing available literature on the potential effect of Medicaid disproportionate-share hospital cuts with and without concomitant Medicaid expansion. Limitations of Medicaid expansion efforts before and under the Affordable Care Act, the disproportionate-share hospital payment program, and other legislation providing safety net hospitals with (some) relief of financial burdens related to uncompensated care are explicated. Findings raise concern that acceptance of cuts of up to 75% of federal disproportionate-share hospital funds on the premise that nationwide state expansion of Medicaid will offset the difference may be overly optimistic. Indeed, foregoing disproportionate-share hospital payments undercuts the otherwise laudable intent of Committee Opinion No. 627, namely to advocate for universal health care for all women, including undocumented immigrants.

Engaging the patient as observer to promote hand hygiene compliance in ambulatory care.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring hand hygiene guideline compliance in an ambulatory environment can be challenging. For example, direct observation by independent observers is impractical because the sink and hand sanitizer dispensers are most often located inside the examination room. At Johns Hopkins Outpatient Center, an ambulatory care facility located on the campus of The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, patients were engaged as an observer in monitoring hand hygiene compliance. METHODS: The Johns Hopkins Hospital's ambulatory quality and patient safety (AQPS) task force, after assessing common methods of monitoring hand hygiene compliance including direct observation, self-reporting, and product usage, evaluated using the patient as an observer. RESULTS: Of 50 patients interviewed, 43 (86%) indicated a willingness to monitor and report providers' compliance with hand hygiene guidelines. In collaboration with providers, a patient-as-observer hand hygiene monitoring process was developed and piloted. Qualitative feedback postimplementation did not indicate that the process would inhibit the patient-provider relationship. The cost of the program to implement and maintain averages $0.17 per patient encounter. The overall patient response rate was 21.6% (range, 12%-77%), based on completed observation cards to total appointments completed. Hand hygiene compliance as measured by the patient-as-observer process averaged 88% (range, 74%-100%). Independent observation revealed 100% concurrence between the patient's recorded observation and the independent observer. DISCUSSION: Engaging the patient to report on hand hygiene compliance was found to be efficient and acceptable to patients and providers, and the results of the observations were representative of actual provider behavior.

Registration-associated patient misidentification in an academic medical center: causes and corrections.

BACKGROUND: Proper patient identification is a major factor affecting patient safety in any health care organization. METHODS: An interdisciplinary team, using three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, reviewed the incidence of patient misidentifications resulting from registration process errors. Retrospective and prospective data were collected to determine the incidence among inpatients and outpatients. RESULTS: Registration-associated patient misidentification errors occurred 7 to 15 times per month. Information systems deficiencies, inadequate training, and the lack of a single master patient index were among the root causes identified. After three PDSA cycles, the incidence rate for registration-associated patient misidentification errors declined for inpatients (80.5%) but increased for outpatients (30.2%). DISCUSSION: Through an iterative process as implied in the PDSA cycle, registration-associated patient misidentification errors for established Johns Hopkins Hospital patients were dramatically reduced. A checklist is provided for other organizations to assess their vulnerability to registration-associated patient misidentification errors. The checklist suggests, for example, that organizations strive to develop a single master patient index and limit access to registration systems to staff with proper training and performance expectations.