JCAHO expands number of RFIs hospitals may receive during survey
Accreditation Connection, March 31, 2006
JCAHO expands number of RFIs hospitals may receive during survey
The JCAHO is expanding the number of citations a hospital may receive during survey that can trigger a possible loss of accreditation.
The relaxed number of requirements for improvement (RFIs) a hospital can receive before landing into conditional (CON) or preliminary denial of accreditation (PDA) was announced to JCAHO surveyors on Monday in an e-mail from Joseph Cappiello, JCAHO vice president of accreditation field operations, that was obtained by HCPro. The JCAHO also made a distinction between "small" and "large" hospitals.
According to Cappiello's announcement to surveyors, the following RFI threshold changes were decided at a March 21 meeting of the JCAHO's Accreditation Committee and are retroactive to January 1:
For large hospitals (average daily census equal to or greater than 100):
For small hospitals (average daily census less than 100):
The change is most welcome for large hospitals. Those landing in CON and PDA have increased over the past year, experts say, because the previously established lower thresholds created a high probability that their surveys would result in an adverse decision. For example, a small hospital may have one to two surveyors for up to three days, but a large hospital may have three to five surveyors for up to five days, and therefore have more opportunity to find non-compliance areas and issue RFIs.
The number of organizations in CON or PDA so far this year and how the process to overturn the decisions was not known at press time. Requests for comment from the JCAHO were not immediately returned.
The threshold changes and split between small and large hospitals is "a step in the right direction," according to Bud Pate, REHS, a consultant with The Greeley Company, a division of HCPro.
"This kind of adjustment is long overdue," Pate says. "But it's unfortunate they had to wait until the end of the first quarter of the year to make it right for all the people who've been on tenterhooks."
According to Cappiello's email, the changes will be outlined in the JCAHO's May issue of its publication Perspectives, which all accredited organizations receive.
HCPro will continue to follow this story and provide in-depth coverage and analysis in the May issue of Briefings on JCAHO newsletter.
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Acute respiratory failure diagnosis does not require intubation
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: TPO disclosures to a business associate
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Q/A: Coding infusions to correct low potassium levels
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- E-mailed
-
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Acute respiratory failure diagnosis does not require intubation
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Q/A: Coding infusions to correct low potassium levels
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Oxygen Cylinder Storage Requirements
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- Cohesive History and Physical Requirements
- Hospitals are not bound by InterQual criteria for determining patient status
- Q/A: New code for image-guided minimally invasive lumbar decompression
- Searched
